S/O regarding submissive wives for non-Christians.

[Greta]

GretaLynne, I feel compelled to point out that you are one who shows a great deal of grace in your communications. :thumbup1:

 

Oh, you are too kind. You didn't read some of the things that I, just in the nick of time, found the wisdom to delete before hitting that "submit reply" key. :D Or perhaps some of the things I've said in the past (is there a foot-in-mouth smilie?). But I'm working on it. Slowly but surely. Following the example of you and others on here who demonstrate the kind of grace I would like to have. Does it start to come naturally at some point? Or will it always be an extreme effort? :lol:

[Greta]

Partners in a law firm. A pair of lumberjacks operating a two man saw. A quarterback and a receiver. A writer and her editor. The head coach and the point guard. In each of these cases, the decision maker will vary according to the situation

 

Thank you, that was spot on. I think that the strength of my marriage lies in the fact that it is a partnership and not a hierarchy. Because the decision making varies by the situation, by what is at stake, by the potential outcomes, by the relative and specific strengths and weaknesses of the two particular individuals involved, we have been far more likely, on average, to have made the best choice. If either one of us had the final say all the time, regardless of which one of us it was, things would not have gone as well. And because we view it as a partnership rather than a hierarchy, we work very hard for consensus and cooperation, rather than one of us imposing our will on the other.

Edited July 13, 2009 by GretaLynne
didn't come out right the first time

[Marylou]

Partners in a law firm. A pair of lumberjacks operating a two man saw. A quarterback and a receiver. A writer and her editor. The head coach and the point guard. In each of these cases, the decision maker will vary according to the situation.

 

And nature is full of examples of things working together in synergy without one dominating the other. In the cardiovascular system, what is the boss, the lungs or the heart?

 

Your examples still put the emphasis on "doing" rather than "being".

 

I completely understand that many people (including lots of Christians) have the "partner" type of marriage. But I guess my question in reading this thread is why the submission/headship model is considered "foreign" and many times ridiculed?

 

ETA: Gotta get lunch on the table. I'll return later.

[5kidsforME]

I have to ask this question:

 

If you are a Christian, why are you here on this thread addressed to non-Christians? There are two other threads for Christians on this topic. Are you here to answer questions politely and respectfully or to ask questions politely and respectfully? Are you here to save souls by showing another way? I am asking this seriously. Or are you trolling?

 

This is an empty accusation in an attempt to assasinate a posters character.

 

The same could be said about King M and other non christians that posted on the christian threads.

[Audrey]

I thought I'd never actually write this..SNORT!!!

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Audrey]

Classy lady, you are exactly one of the people I had in mind for the second group. We may have different beliefs, but when you post, I read. You state your beliefs articulately(way better than I can) and respectfully. You ask questions back-I don't see that often. Your questions have the purpose of expanding your understanding not for merely gaining wit points.

 

Actually, your questions usually expand my understanding. How do you manage that?;)

:iagree: When Carmen posts it never comes across as proselytizing, nor as an attempt to "score points." Plus, she takes the time to provide explanations and supporting links that aren't simply regurgitation from sources like WND, Fox, and AIG.

[Lovedtodeath]

Does it start to come naturally at some point? Or will it always be an extreme effort?

Well, honesty, I think I have gotten better at it lately due to asking for holy spirit in a lot of prayer. :leaving:

 

When dh and I are each viewing an issue or situation very differently, reminding ourselves that we are on the same team is a really important place to start...

Everything was well worded, but this especially. Husband and wife are "one". When we work to benefit the other, we work to benefit ourselves. When DH is suffering, I am suffering, and vise versa. We are one. Remembering that helps nearly everything.

 

Actually, your questions usually expand my understanding. How do you manage that?;)

Great minds think a like? ;) Edited July 13, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Greta]

But I guess my question in reading this thread is why the submission/headship model is considered "foreign" and many times ridiculed?

 

May I give it a shot? My own personal answer to that is that in the examples of headship that you gave, such as the CEO of a company, that person earned that position by way of their education, training, experience, and expertise. But in the case of headship in a marriage, it is being handed to one person over the other based solely upon sex. It seems completely arbitrary. Now I realize that you and other Christians don't see it as arbitrary. Or at least I'm guessing as much. You must feel that men have traits which qualify them for this position which women do not. And I'm really not saying this to ridicule, and I hope that's clear, but only to try to answer your question. I just really can't see how a man is more qualified, simply by way of being a man, to make ALL the decisions that need to be made in a family. I can see how he would be more qualified in some areas and she in others, and that is why a partnership makes more sense to me. That way, each person gets to take the lead in their own areas of strength, and, by the same token, one person's weaknesses can be compensated for by the other. Furthermore, a partnership implies two (or more) people working together in cooperation for a common goal that is beneficial to both. But submission implies that one person's will must be sacrificed for the other.

Edited July 13, 2009 by GretaLynne

[Marylou]

This is the part I don't get.

 

Why does one person have to make the final decisions?

 

This runs counter to all of my experiences and all that I have been taught or observed. I cannot imagine a circumstance under which one partner (whichever one!) has to make a unilateral decision unless the marriage is so broken that communication and consensus building are impossible... in which case *someone* would have to be making some decisions so that day-to-day life can continue. ...but y'all are talking about an ideal here, not coping with dysfunction.

 

[side note: I'm asking from a practical perspective, not a theological one. I understand that there is a strong Xtian understanding based on certain quotes from your scriptures that you're been instructed to have a certain model of marriage. I am not in any way trying to criticize or question that - I am responding to the idea that it is, intrinsically, a necessary arrangement that one partner (whichever one) needs to be the head of the family.]

 

Hi Eliana, thanks for your input. I think another misconception of the Christian marriage is that the husband needs to be the head of the wife. The Bible teaches that the husband is the head of the wife (just his wife). He may be a rotten head, but he is still the head! Thanks again for your own example.

[lionfamily1999]

This is the part I don't get.

 

Why does one person have to make the final decisions?

 

This runs counter to all of my experiences and all that I have been taught or observed. I cannot imagine a circumstance under which one partner (whichever one!) has to make a unilateral decision unless the marriage is so broken that communication and consensus building are impossible... in which case *someone* would have to be making some decisions so that day-to-day life can continue. ...but y'all are talking about an ideal here, not coping with dysfunction.

 

[side note: I'm asking from a practical perspective, not a theological one. I understand that there is a strong Xtian understanding based on certain quotes from your scriptures that you're been instructed to have a certain model of marriage. I am not in any way trying to criticize or question that - I am responding to the idea that it is, intrinsically, a necessary arrangement that one partner (whichever one) needs to be the head of the family.]

I'm not sure that there are many unilateral decisions. I try to submit to my husband, according to my understanding of what 'submit' means. Now, that does not mean that I call him at work in a panic over whether or not to give the kids juice, or that I clear any and all purchases with him, or that I have to get permission before I take the kids on a day trip. I do, however, seek his input on matters of the household and things that I am unsure on.

examples :)

household matters:

I want to switch everything to cable, the cost is about the same and only having one bill is, imo, easier. He doesn't, it's too new, too untried (in our area), and since the cost is close to the same as what we pay now, he thinks, better safe than sorry. Well, until I convince him otherwise, we aren't going cable.

things I am unsure on:

I want to buy a new science program. I already bought Adventures with Atoms and Molecules, but I found something I believe I will like better. Dh is reading a free version of another program by the same author. His will be the last word.

 

Now, my sister bridles at even these things, so I'm sure there's going to be people that think 'door mat!' IMO, these are easy things to submit on, they don't matter overly much to me and if there was something that does then I would do my best to convince him.

 

I think the captain analogy does work rather well. The captain doesn't just pull their decisions from thin air, assuming they're a good captain, they get information from everyone else and use that to make a decision (normally following the advice of those fact gatherers). I don't know enough about sailing or boating to compare us using that particular scenerio (who's second to the captain???), but I can say that dh calls me the gatekeeper. You have to go through me to get to him, most of the time. If you want him to do favors, you may as well ask me, because I know where we're supposed to be when, what's going on and whether or not he'll be free. The final decision is his, but I'm the one that presents it and normally, he goes with what I want to do.

[Greta]

Well, honesty, I think I have gotten better at it lately due to asking for holy spirit in a lot of prayer. :leaving:

 

 

A very productive method, in my experience. :001_smile:

[Greta]

To have a power struggle, you have to have two (opposing) sides. When dh and I are each viewing an issue or situation very differently, reminding ourselves that we are on the same team is a really important place to start... then the difference of viewpoints becomes a gift rather than a challenge.

 

No one is "in charge" in our marriage - and every important decision in our lives, and most not-as-important ones have been made with heartfelt unanimity.

 

Your entire post was lovely, but I especially appreciated the above snippets. Thank you so much for sharing!

[Marylou]

May I give it a shot? My own personal answer to that is that in the examples of headship that you gave, such as the CEO of a company, that person earned that position by way of their education, training, experience, and expertise. But in the case of headship in a marriage, it is being handed to one person over the other based solely upon sex. It seems completely arbitrary. Now I realize that you and other Christians don't see it as arbitrary. Or at least I'm guessing as much. You must feel that men have traits which qualify them for this position which women do not. And I'm really not saying this to ridicule, and I hope that's clear, but only to try to answer your question. I just really can't see how a man is more qualified, simply by way of being a man, to make ALL the decisions that need to be made in a family. I can see how he would be more qualified in some areas and she in others, and that is why a partnership makes more sense to me. That way, each person gets to take the lead in their own areas of strength, and, by the same token, one person's weaknesses can be compensated for by the other.

 

 

Okay, thank you very much for this. I know my examples are not really saying what I mean. I understand about the "earning" a position in the commercial world. I think that's why the Christian submission/headship model gets such a bad rap. People think the man "earned" his position as head of the wife, and therefore he must be more qualified, superior, more worthy, a better person, etc. That is not how it is, so when others use terms like "patriarchy" or "BDSM" it is seen as ridicule. You are right that I don't see the roles of wife and husband as arbitrary, but I also don't think that because the husband is the head he is more qualified. No one will find that line of reasoning in the Bible either.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[swimmermom3]

Actually, what I don't like, and what makes me want to share my perspective more forcefully than I otherwise might, is having other people presume to express my thoughts and motives on my behalf. I think that one reason why Christians got involved with this thread, when it was addressed to non-Christians, was because posters were questioning the Christian point of view, and the motives behind them. If the conversation had been strictly a secular viewpoint, maybe so many Christians wouldn't have gotten involved in this conversation.

 

Erica, I've really had to think about your post and how I personally word things here.

 

If I were to say, " I don't understand the concept of wifely submission." I need to go further and say, "...in relation to my marriage." "Or it's not how my dh and I think about our marriage. Otherwise, a Christian may view my original statement as a question of their beliefs. This would then encourage a stronger-than- ordinary response? Which would then inspire me to ask about trolling. Which is unacceptable behavior on my part.:blushing:

 

For the record, just because my marriage doesn't follow a "head-of -the household" pattern, I would never question someone else's choice to do so. I don't think of a woman that does so as weak, to me, she is simply a woman of faith. That would imply a certain strength of character.

 

 

Your examples still put the emphasis on "doing" rather than "being".

 

I completely understand that many people (including lots of Christians) have the "partner" type of marriage. But I guess my question in reading this thread is why the submission/headship model is considered "foreign" and many times ridiculed?

 

Not ridiculed, at least not for me. I just can't get past the word, "submission". There were a couple of posts where the posters insisted the word be used, repeatedly. Sort of a "get over it" attitude, we all submit all the time. Great. You "submit". For some, the word does have very negative connotations-such as rape, assault, and degradation. It's the personal experience that you bring to the word that can make it hard to swallow.

[Greta]

People think the man "earned" his position as head of the wife, and therefore he must be more qualified, superior, more worthy, a better person, etc. That is not how it is, so when others use terms like "patriarchy" or "BDSM" it is seen as ridicule. You are right that I don't see the roles of wife and husband as arbitrary, but I also don't think that because the husband is the head he is more qualified. No one will find that line of reasoning in the Bible either.

 

Well, I am really glad if I helped at all, but now I think I am more confused than before!!! :D If the man is not more qualified, then by what virtue does he get headship? Obviously I am missing something very critical to understanding how this is supposed to work. Maybe I need to read that article you linked me to earlier. I started reading it, but didn't get very far before there was a distraction, and then somehow I ended up back here instead of finishing it. These boards are so addictive! :)

[swimmermom3]

To have a power struggle, you have to have two (opposing) sides. When dh and I are each viewing an issue or situation very differently, reminding ourselves that we are on the same team is a really important place to start... then the difference of viewpoints becomes a gift rather than a challenge. Usually we are each seeing a different aspect of the issue, and that expanded perspective makes finding a solution that meets our values and priorities so much more likely than if we only used one perspective. It takes more effort in the short term, but not only does it lead to better solutions, taking the time and energy to work through to consensus strengthens our marriage and broadens us as individuals.

 

We aren't running a ship, or a military operation, and I cannot think of any occasion on which an important decision had to be made immediately without taking the time to really talk it through. ...medical emergencies, a stovetop fire, or a child trying to run into the street are all important, but none requires a "leader", just that the adult immediately on hand respond appropriately!

 

No one is "in charge" in our marriage - and every important decision in our lives, and most not-as-important ones have been made with heartfelt unanimity. There is no winning or losing, or asking/granting of permission, or submission (mutual or otherwise) - we work together with shared values, priorities, and goals... with mutual respect, understanding, and (honestly) adoration.

 

We got to where we are by talking and talking and talking in our early years... as friends in high school and then as a young couple, we worked through our thoughts, our dreams, and our values together... and as we grew and matured we kept talking and talking... enjoying both the *zing* of shared passions and the stretch of seeing another viewpoint - one held by the person we loved, respected, and admired above all others. We nurtured our mutual adoration - there is no other man in the universe who can compare to Yitzchak and his certainty that I outshine all others is more of a given for me than that sun will rise tomorrow.

 

With love, respect, and a commitment to consensus, we have never had a serious disagreement in 19 years.... or, going further back, our 23 years of friendship. And I cannot imagine any circumstances in which one of us would turn any issue into a power struggle.

 

So, while I resepect every couple's right to choose a marital framework which best suits their beliefs and values, I cannot imagine any *need* for a leader/captain/head-of-household (regardless of gender) and I cannot see any reason why such an arrangement would lead to greater marital harmony (for couples in general - I can see that some couples might be happier with a less-equal balance of power, for whatever reasons.)

 

From my religious perspective, my marriage is the coming together of two halves of a whole - Yitzchak is my bashert (sometimes translated soul mate), the other half of my soul (and vice versa). Our relationship is one of equals, a partnership based on each of us accepting the other completely as who s/he is and each using our unique attributes to contribute to making our marriage a holy space. Although we learn so much from each other, although tradition teaches us that men and women have different spiritual strengths and insights, it is, always, a relationship of equals.

 

Wow! Just...wow.

[Marylou]

. These boards are so addictive! :)

 

I hear ya! I'm off to join the real world, too! Have a great afternoon!

[swimmermom3]

Okay, thank you very much for this. I know my examples are not really saying what I mean. I understand about the "earning" a position in the commercial world. I think that's why the Christian submission/headship model gets such a bad rap. People think the man "earned" his position as head of the wife, and therefore he must be more qualified, superior, more worthy, a better person, etc. That is not how it is, so when others use terms like "patriarchy" or "BDSM" it is seen as ridicule. You are right that I don't see the roles of wife and husband as arbitrary, but I also don't think that because the husband is the head he is more qualified. No one will find that line of reasoning in the Bible either.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Donna, thank you for sharing this point. I looked up the definition of patriarchy to be sure I wasn't missing something. Would it be inappropriate to use it in this sense?:confused:

[KarenNC]

Well, I am really glad if I helped at all, but now I think I am more confused than before!!! :D If the man is not more qualified, then by what virtue does he get headship? Obviously I am missing something very critical to understanding how this is supposed to work. Maybe I need to read that article you linked me to earlier. I started reading it, but didn't get very far before there was a distraction, and then somehow I ended up back here instead of finishing it. These boards are so addictive! :)

 

It boils down to "because God said so". This is not meant to be sarcastic----that is what much of any revealed faith comes down to in the end, hence the term "revealed faith"---the tenets of the faith are revealed by the deity involved.

 

My understanding is that it is primarily based originally on the Genesis 2 story of creation where God creates woman from man's rib. Man was created first, then plants and animals and finally woman was created as a helpmeet. Man is specifically given responsibility over that which was created after him. See Genesis 2: 15-24.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31

 

Answers in Genesis gives this teaching http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/inferior-or-equal

 

Note that the Genesis 1 story of creation is phrased differently---

Genesis 1:26-30 (New International Version). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=31

 

There are those who teach that Gen 2 is a more detailed version of the creation mentioned in Genesis 1, others who believe that it was two different stories from two different oral sources that were combined (see documentary hypothesis, which is what I was taught in a lay ministry course from an Episcopal seminary http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm). http://www.annettereed.com/RS-2DD3/3.pdf discusses this in more detail (from a religious studies course, but not one I've taken). The documentary hypothesis is not something you will find very well-regarded among Biblical literalists, however, just fyi.

Edited July 13, 2009 by KarenNC

[Dobela]

This is the part I don't get.

 

Why does one person have to make the final decisions?

 

This runs counter to all of my experiences and all that I have been taught or observed. I cannot imagine a circumstance under which one partner (whichever one!) has to make a unilateral decision unless the marriage is so broken that communication and consensus building are impossible... in which case *someone* would have to be making some decisions so that day-to-day life can continue. ...but y'all are talking about an ideal here, not coping with dysfunction.

 

[side note: I'm asking from a practical perspective, not a theological one. I understand that there is a strong Xtian understanding based on certain quotes from your scriptures that you're been instructed to have a certain model of marriage. I am not in any way trying to criticize or question that - I am responding to the idea that it is, intrinsically, a necessary arrangement that one partner (whichever one) needs to be the head of the family.]

Sorry if I have have covered things already covered. I started writing this at least a couple of hours ago and have had many interruptions.

 

This is a hard concept, or at least it has been for me. I am a very strong willed, take the bull by the horns kind of a woman. My dh is not. He is quiet, meek, and slow to make decisions sometimes. We are also Christians. Someone asked about verses, there are several but I dont' really have time to look for them right now. In Titus and Timothy there are verses referring to Deacons and elders and their wives. Most Christians I know consider those to be the requirements for those positions. And, that we (as Christians) should aspire to the characteristics of those positions even if we don't want the position itself. The elders and deacons are supposed to be able to guide their family well, lead them to be faithful Chrsitians, and so on. There are verses that provide examples of men providing for their families and how important that is. Other verses say a man is to love his wife. In 1 Corinthians 13, love is defined in many ways-patient, kind, considerant, not boasting, and so on. So for a man to love his wife, he has specific examples in other areas of the Bible of what love is. There is no excuse for mistreating her IMO.

 

I believe in God as creator of everything. God set up a system where all living creatures will respond to him. As such, he gave specific guidelines and expectations in the Bible for particular roles. And some vague ones that are left for interpretation. By looking at lots of different scriptures an image of male responsibilty over the family emerges as far back as Adam and Eve. If you look at the verses in Titus and Timothy, with the specific verses of loving the wife, to a Christian it is fairly clear that the man has special God given responsibilities in the whole scheme of things. Because he is expected to love his wife (and then there are verses that also say the parent is not to lead a child to exasperation), the idea of submission leads into this for most Christians I know personally: God will hold my dh accountable for the overall well being of the family. Because he is being held accountable, he needs to do the job-like a CEO. Just as I trust God and accept him as leader of my faith (and rulemaker), I accept my dh as leader of the family because that is what God set up. A friend describes the Biblical roles like a director (God) assigning parts in a play. You have 2 actors in 2 positions with special lines. Sometimes they can say lines for the other and it is ok. Sometimes not. Sometimes it may appear okbut because the director has a different vision (and one that the actors may not fully see or understand), he doesn't allow the actors to switch lines at that point in the play.

 

No where in the Bible do I see women unable to make their own choices-except in the OT for some marriages, and even then I would question that the arrangement was what God wanted because it led t much heartache (I am thinking of Jacob, Rachael, and Leah). No where does the Bible say that I am to make no decisions and allow my dh to control me. In fact, if you read 1 Cor 13, it would be difficult for a dh to make decisions and lord over me if he truely loved as he was told to love. And, following the example of God himself who gives us free will to make decisions, my dh should be giving me free will to make decisions as well.

 

That being said, my marriage is still a partnership. And very different from my parents marriage. Some Christians who are strictly a "submissive family" will define every chore and role as a male or female role. But that isn't true, and I don't believe it is the way God intended. The woman in Proverbs 31 had a job, managed money, supervised workers, and more. Lydia was a seller of purple who led her family to Christianity. Other women we are told about are housewives and mothers. My mother handled all the finances, did the yard work, and my dad did all the cooking. It worked for them. Nothing inthe Bible says "and only women shall cook". In my house, my dh does all the finances, cleaning and the yardwork while I do other things like cooking and laundry and repairs. Nothing in the Bible says only the woman shall clean house. When a big decision is to be made, while I may recognize my dh as the one with the final say, I know that for us, he has not made that decision with out careful consideration of us and our family needs.

 

My dh and most men I know will not make decisions that are intentionally detrimental to their family. Most men I know will consult wives and family before making decisions of importance. If they love their wives, that is how they do it. My dh does very little with out first talking to me - because he wants my opinion. Often his final decision is what ever I said my opinion was. If we want the same thing, but want different paths, sometimes I will go his route (and be very pleasantly surprised it worked better than mine). Sometimes he will go mine. I make many decisions for our family, including some big ones. I also recognize in God's eyes that dh is head and has specific responsibilities. Recognizing him as the head means I am not the only one responsible for making the family work. He has roles and responsibilities as well. He, by Biblical standards, should be able to lead the family and to do it with love. If he can't, that is another issue (which leads ot all those "what if" situations that can lead to rabbit trails ). Being submissive means that I am not constantly usurping his role that I believe God gave to him. For me personally it means that I don't bypass my dh in decision making that would have big impact on the family or treat him like a first grader because I can out talk him and be more powerful verbally. For me submitting is respect, it is remembering that someone else also has God given responsibility. It is not fear, abuse, lack of opinion, or putting my children in danger, or being in control. Is it heirachy? Yea. But one I choose to follow. Do I believe other Christians take it to extremes? Absolutely. But that can be said about some members of any persuasion.

 

Now, that being said, if you aren't a Christian, I don't expect you to have the same background or expectations for marriage-or use the same terminology. Just like I am not a follower of another religions writings on a topic. I have many nonChristian friends and their marriages look very much like mine. Their actions and family arrangement is set up with love, respect, and overall family well being in the center as well.

[KingM]

If you look at the verses in Titus and Timothy, with the specific verses of loving the wife, to a Christian it is fairly clear that the man has special God given responsibilities in the whole scheme of things.

 

Don't you mean most born-again or evangelical Christians? The minister of the local United Church of Christ is a woman and I believe that Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, and many other mainline Protestants don't think in these terms either.

 

I'm just pointing this out because on this board it seems like "Christian" is often used as shorthand for members of the evangelical movement, which looks like about 420 million people worldwide. This is a big number, but only 20-25% of all Christians.

[KingM]

Eliana,

 

That was interesting as always. Does this sort of discussion ever occur within Orthodox Judaism, or is it not a point of debate? I would imagine there might be some cultural holdovers, at least, from Orthodox Jews who had come from a more rural, versus urban background, or no?

[muffinmom]

I think this whole "headship" thing is less about decision-making and more about accountability. In other words, the husband is accountable to God for the spiritual health of the family (not that the wife has no role, and in fact, the wives often have the most to offer in terms of spiritual sensitivity and understanding).

 

I don't think anyone here has to make a case for the profound influence a father or husband has on a family, for good or for bad. I believe what God desires is for a man to take his husband/father role seriously and serve his family with sacrificial love, as Christ loved the church. I believe He wants the man to take any power he may have by might or by influence and use it not for himself, but for the good for his family.

[swimmermom3]

Sorry if I have have covered things already covered. I started writing this at least a couple of hours ago and have had many interruptions.

 

This is a hard concept, or at least it has been for me. I am a very strong willed, take the bull by the horns kind of a woman. My dh is not. He is quiet, meek, and slow to make decisions sometimes. We are also Christians. Someone asked about verses, there are several but I dont' really have time to look for them right now. In Titus and Timothy there are verses referring to Deacons and elders and their wives. Most Christians I know consider those to be the requirements for those positions. And, that we (as Christians) should aspire to the characteristics of those positions even if we don't want the position itself. The elders and deacons are supposed to be able to guide their family well, lead them to be faithful Chrsitians, and so on. There are verses that provide examples of men providing for their families and how important that is. Other verses say a man is to love his wife. In 1 Corinthians 13, love is defined in many ways-patient, kind, considerant, not boasting, and so on. So for a man to love his wife, he has specific examples in other areas of the Bible of what love is. There is no excuse for mistreating her IMO.

 

I believe in God as creator of everything. God set up a system where all living creatures will respond to him. As such, he gave specific guidelines and expectations in the Bible for particular roles. And some vague ones that are left for interpretation. By looking at lots of different scriptures an image of male responsibilty over the family emerges as far back as Adam and Eve. If you look at the verses in Titus and Timothy, with the specific verses of loving the wife, to a Christian it is fairly clear that the man has special God given responsibilities in the whole scheme of things. Because he is expected to love his wife (and then there are verses that also say the parent is not to lead a child to exasperation), the idea of submission leads into this for most Christians I know personally: God will hold my dh accountable for the overall well being of the family. Because he is being held accountable, he needs to do the job-like a CEO. Just as I trust God and accept him as leader of my faith (and rulemaker), I accept my dh as leader of the family because that is what God set up. A friend describes the Biblical roles like a director (God) assigning parts in a play. You have 2 actors in 2 positions with special lines. Sometimes they can say lines for the other and it is ok. Sometimes not. Sometimes it may appear okbut because the director has a different vision (and one that the actors may not fully see or understand), he doesn't allow the actors to switch lines at that point in the play.

 

No where in the Bible do I see women unable to make their own choices-except in the OT for some marriages, and even then I would question that the arrangement was what God wanted because it led t much heartache (I am thinking of Jacob, Rachael, and Leah). No where does the Bible say that I am to make no decisions and allow my dh to control me. In fact, if you read 1 Cor 13, it would be difficult for a dh to make decisions and lord over me if he truely loved as he was told to love. And, following the example of God himself who gives us free will to make decisions, my dh should be giving me free will to make decisions as well.

 

That being said, my marriage is still a partnership. And very different from my parents marriage. Some Christians who are strictly a "submissive family" will define every chore and role as a male or female role. But that isn't true, and I don't believe it is the way God intended. The woman in Proverbs 31 had a job, managed money, supervised workers, and more. Lydia was a seller of purple who led her family to Christianity. Other women we are told about are housewives and mothers. My mother handled all the finances, did the yard work, and my dad did all the cooking. It worked for them. Nothing inthe Bible says "and only women shall cook". In my house, my dh does all the finances, cleaning and the yardwork while I do other things like cooking and laundry and repairs. Nothing in the Bible says only the woman shall clean house. When a big decision is to be made, while I may recognize my dh as the one with the final say, I know that for us, he has not made that decision with out careful consideration of us and our family needs.

 

My dh and most men I know will not make decisions that are intentionally detrimental to their family. Most men I know will consult wives and family before making decisions of importance. If they love their wives, that is how they do it. My dh does very little with out first talking to me - because he wants my opinion. Often his final decision is what ever I said my opinion was. If we want the same thing, but want different paths, sometimes I will go his route (and be very pleasantly surprised it worked better than mine). Sometimes he will go mine. I make many decisions for our family, including some big ones. I also recognize in God's eyes that dh is head and has specific responsibilities. Recognizing him as the head means I am not the only one responsible for making the family work. He has roles and responsibilities as well. He, by Biblical standards, should be able to lead the family and to do it with love. If he can't, that is another issue (which leads ot all those "what if" situations that can lead to rabbit trails ). Being submissive means that I am not constantly usurping his role that I believe God gave to him. For me personally it means that I don't bypass my dh in decision making that would have big impact on the family or treat him like a first grader because I can out talk him and be more powerful verbally. For me submitting is respect, it is remembering that someone else also has God given responsibility. It is not fear, abuse, lack of opinion, or putting my children in danger, or being in control. Is it heirachy? Yea. But one I choose to follow. Do I believe other Christians take it to extremes? Absolutely. But that can be said about some members of any persuasion.

 

Now, that being said, if you aren't a Christian, I don't expect you to have the same background or expectations for marriage-or use the same terminology. Just like I am not a follower of another religions writings on a topic. I have many nonChristian friends and their marriages look very much like mine. Their actions and family arrangement is set up with love, respect, and overall family well being in the center as well.

 

It sounds as though you have a good marriage based on a strong foundation of trust, love, and your faith. It also looks like you work at it. This helps my understanding about one Christian perspective. I should really do something like feed my children or clean the house. I just feel like I'm learning so much. Thank you.

[KarenNC]

Well, the Torah perspective on this is very different (probably not surprising!)

 

Yes, thanks for clarifying that. I do understand that the Jewish teaching is different. I was attempting to give the basis for the reasoning as I had been told by evangelical Christians.

 

[And a quick correction: humans were created on the sixth day *after* the rest of creation.]

 

In Genesis 1, yes, it explicitly says they were created on the sixth day and gives days for all the rest of creation. In Genesis 2 the order is not as spelled out, other than to say that God created man before any shrub or plant had grown. As I said, some consider Gen 2 to be an amplification of Gen 1, some a different story altogether. But you are correct. In order to keep within the context of the folks who hold to the submission teaching, I should have stuck with Gen 2 as an amplification of Gen 1 and therefore the understanding that humans were created on the sixth day. Thanks for catching that.

 

It seem to me that the relevant quotes are from the Xtian New Testament- which, by some interpretations, outlines a model of marriage with the husband as the head (submitting to the authority of the church) and the wife submitting to the authority of the husband. So, yes, from that perspective it comes down to believing that the husband as head is the divinely given model for a Xtian marriage.

 

True, but if you look at the Answers in Genesis info, the interpretation of these quotes in the Christian Scriptures includes a specific understanding of the way in which they believe those verses in the Hebrew Scriptures should be interpreted as to the roles of men and women.

Edited July 13, 2009 by KarenNC

[Dobela]

Don't you mean most born-again or evangelical Christians? The minister of the local United Church of Christ is a woman and I believe that Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, and many other mainline Protestants don't think in these terms either.

 

I'm just pointing this out because on this board it seems like "Christian" is often used as shorthand for members of the evangelical movement, which looks like about 420 million people worldwide. This is a big number, but only 20-25% of all Christians.

I wasn't thinking in terms of specific groups within Christianity. Personally I see myself as more fundamental, but that in itself has a whole different connotation in Christianity and I don't believe as many who call themselves fundamentalist do. I would just call myself a conservative Christian more than anything. To me evangelical means belief in things like speaking in tongues, which I don't believe still happen today. I can see th confusion however as to how Christians divide themselves if one isn't one. Even with in a group, say Presbyterians, you will find the very conservative and the very liberal.

 

Anyway, just because some churches allow women as leaders doesn't mean they don't agree with the idea that the man is the head of the household. Some allow women preachers because they feel the holy spirit gave the woman that talent and it would be sinful to not allow her to use it accordingly. Take Joyce Meyers for example. She teaches that the man is the head of the household. She is also in a very public position that is a traditional man's role. Many Christians don't believe women should be teaching men in mixed groups. However, I have read where she also asked permission (or blessings) from her dh before she went into the pulpit and that because she has his permission it is acceptable for her to be teaching mixed groups. Others do it because they don't take anything in the Bible as a directive from God that needs to be obeyed. Others see God as so loving and kind that it doesn't matter what you do, he will accept everything you do as ok, even if he said in the Bible something different. Some believe the Bible is THE word of God, others see it as a group if interesting stories about the God they chose to follow (kind of like the Greek and Roman stories about their Gods). Then you have the ultra strict Christians like the Amish who have very strict rules and laws based on their Bible beliefs. You would really have to take it on a church by church, or even a Christian by Christian basis.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Dobela
grammar error

[Rosie_0801]

Sure, it can be like that. Just like a man who takes the head-of-household thing too seriously can become overbearing and demanding-- it works both ways. I don't think that means the wife is ALWAYS doomed to become a nag. My mom ruled the roost growing up, and Dad happily gave her that role. To this day she does the finances and makes most of the decisions. I actually sought out more equality of decision making in my own marriage, but what they had worked for them. They absolutely adore each other, even after almost 50 years of marriage!

 

I'm not saying a woman should always be the head of household, only that there is no reason she shouldn't be. (And ideally, IMO, the head of household role is shared by both). I hope that made sense! :001_unsure:

 

 

I think we're working with the same model but calling it something different :) I consider dh the head of the house because ultimately the buck stops with him. He finances me, after all, so he could pull rank if he wanted to. Fortunately he generally doesn't :D I make most of the decisions around here, because I usually care more. For most practicalities, we are a partnership. We act like a partnership, we feel like a partnership, but someone has to have the ultimate say in the case of stalemate and it's him. Unless I felt strongly enough over the issue to leave! I can't think of anything I'd feel that strongly over, and I can't think of anything he'd let me leave over, but I think most of this head of household business is hypothetical in case of stalemate. I don't know about everyone else, but stalemates don't happen often, and when they do, we press pause on the argument and ponder the subject individually to find some way of compromising.

 

I hope that made sense! :001_unsure:

Yeah, what you said ;)

 

Rosie

[Rosie_0801]

. A writer and her editor. The decision maker will vary according to the situation.

 

That's a very good example of how a biblical marriage should be working, as I understand it. The decision maker will vary according to the situation, but when push comes to shove, the editor wins out. As I said in another post. Someone has to have the final say if it comes to stalemate. Naturally, the partners do as much negotiation as they can to avoid stalemate.

 

Rosie

[Firefly]

I think we're working with the same model but calling it something different :) I consider dh the head of the house because ultimately the buck stops with him. He finances me, after all, so he could pull rank if he wanted to. Fortunately he generally doesn't :D I make most of the decisions around here, because I usually care more. For most practicalities, we are a partnership. We act like a partnership, we feel like a partnership, but someone has to have the ultimate say in the case of stalemate and it's him. Unless I felt strongly enough over the issue to leave! I can't think of anything I'd feel that strongly over, and I can't think of anything he'd let me leave over, but I think most of this head of household business is hypothetical in case of stalemate. I don't know about everyone else, but stalemates don't happen often, and when they do, we press pause on the argument and ponder the subject individually to find some way of compromising.

 

Okay, I think I am seeing where you're coming from. I particularly agree with your last sentence.

 

Yes, in the case of a stalemate someone has to make the final decision or come to a compromise. With us, if we can't compromise, sometimes it's me who makes the final decision, sometimes DH. I guess in that respect we are equally "ranked". I understand in some marriages it's the guy who usually makes the final decisions--is the "head of house", and I don't have a problem with that. In some marriages it's the woman who is the head of house (as was the case with my parents). I just don't think the head of house title should by default always be the husband's for the sole reason that he's male.

[Lovedtodeath]

Someone said something about scriptures?

 

on headship:

 

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.

 

Ephesians 5:23-24 because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything.

 

Scriptures with the word submit or submission (in the New World Translation): Hebrews 13:17, Exodus 10:3, 2 Corinthians 9:13, None of these are discussing marriage.

 

Subjected, subjecting, subjection: 1Pet 5:5; Psalms 49:14; 1 Cor 14:34; 1 Timothy 3:4; Gen 1:26, Gen 1:28, Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1 Of these I know the following apply to marriage: Eph 5:22,24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1

 

I don't know how different subjection would be from submission, honestly...

[lionfamily1999]

Someone said something about scriptures?

 

on headship:I don't know how different subjection would be from submission, honestly...

I finally got to read the headship link you posted. It was definite food for thought and made me relax a bit... I mean, I can identify with Sarah more readily than someone more... obviously pious, iykwIm.

Not I! You have chosen a framework for your marriage which works for you and your dh. Every lifestyle choice involves some measure of sacrifice - and I know that every marriage model does as well. I respect your commitment to your values and priorities... and to your marriage.

 

For your model of marriage, yes, but imnsho not every marriage needs a captain! :)

I've known women, like my sister, where they took the captain stance, and it suits them, it fits them and their situation very well. I couldn't do it, but it does work for them. What do you do when there is a stalemate, as so many pps pointed out? What if neither of you will/can budge? Does someone dominate, or does it just end there, with nothing going forward on that particular front?

[KingM]

That's a very good example of how a biblical marriage should be working, as I understand it. The decision maker will vary according to the situation, but when push comes to shove, the editor wins out.

 

As a writer, I can tell you that when it comes to non-fiction, I usually defer to my editor, but this is not the case with fiction. The writer generally has the last say.

 

The problem is, if the fiction writer is too stubborn and the editor knows what she's talking about, then the writer may soon find himself looking for a new editor/publisher.

 

Someone has to have the final say if it comes to stalemate. Naturally, the partners do as much negotiation as they can to avoid stalemate.

 

Hopefully that situation is very rare, but when it happens, why does that final say have to come from the man?

[swimmermom3]

Someone said something about scriptures?

 

on headship:

 

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.

 

 

 

Lovedtodeath, I still can't get there. This sounds like a patriarchy and that the woman is more removed from God than the man. Okay, I know rationally that's not what's meant but it feels that way.

 

 

Man and woman created as one being originally - with all the equality implications that contains - the many drashim on 'ezer knegdo', the concept of women having a greater potential for instinctive connection with Hashem... those all come from *way* far back in the traditional commentaries. The positions I've outlined are not modern at all nor are they in any way controversial.

 

 

I've never heard of many of the concepts Eliana has written about. This idea "of the woman having a greater potential for instructive connection with Hashem" is lovely. It's one thing when this board gets me thinking about changing curriculum. It's another thing when it gets me thinking about faith.

[Lovedtodeath]

Hopefully that situation is very rare, but when it happens, why does that final say have to come from the man?

Well, at least it needs to be the same person each and every time agreed beforehand (hope that makes sense, fighting a migraine)... because if not then you can argue over who should get it.

[Jenny in Atl]

We don't. We keep talking until we work it through.

 

Consensus is very important to us - and, as I said before, I believe that a commitment to consensus has led to better decisions... and a better marriage than we would have if we didn't make ourselves work through the issues until we achieved wholehearted unity.

 

We are a unit, we work together and decide together... using both our strengths and intuitions.

 

...it is hard to have a stalemate when you're on the same side. It's hard to have a dialogue stall when your partner is the most important, amazing, respected, loved person in the universe to you... one whose pain and frustration hurt you as much as him/her. It can happen... but only when one or both of us lose focus on the essentials... and the process of talking things through regrounds us.

 

I can't imagine a situation in which we could not reach an agreement... our marriage is just too important to us.

 

Perhaps it would be different if we hadn't married so young? We were still so much in process and as we grew, we worked hard on growing together, on building the patterns of communication and connection that would give us a good foundation... on ensuring that our marriage was always, even after the kids came, even during some intense periods of crisis, always our top priority.

 

If we didn't have shared values and priorities, if we didn't have a foundation of communication and connection, love and respect, and if we didn't have all these years of making our marriage our top priority, then it would be a lot harder. ...but I still can't envision, with our values, choosing a non-consensus based dynamic... however hard it would be at first to enact. ...but that is *us* and our priorities! I do not presume to judge what would work for anyone else!

 

 

This is my marriage, though how you expressed it sounds far better than anything I could pen. I guess it's no surprise that we have been together for 26 years this November. :)

[Rosie_0801]

We don't. We keep talking until we work it through.

 

Consensus is very important to us - and, as I said before, I believe that a commitment to consensus has led to better decisions... and a better marriage than we would have if we didn't make ourselves work through the issues until we achieved wholehearted unity.

 

We are a unit, we work together and decide together... using both our strengths and intuitions.

 

...it is hard to have a stalemate when you're on the same side. It's hard to have a dialogue stall when your partner is the most important, amazing, respected, loved person in the universe to you... one whose pain and frustration hurt you as much as him/her. It can happen... but only when one or both of us lose focus on the essentials... and the process of talking things through regrounds us.

 

I can't imagine a situation in which we could not reach an agreement... our marriage is just too important to us.

 

 

 

We've only clocked 7 years but yeah, this is us too. I guess if we couldn't find a compromise, we'd have to divorce. Glad that hasn't happened yet. He's a funny guy, but I like having him around :)

Rosie

 

P.S KingM, the answers to your questions lie in my previous posts, but of course they are only my reasons for doing what we do.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Lovedtodeath, I still can't get there. This sounds like a patriarchy and that the woman is more removed from God than the man. Okay, I know rationally that's not what's meant but it feels that way.

I can see how it would seem that way... but considering that some women share Christ's inheritance of God's kingdom and some men don't, that wouldn't compute, I wouldn't think.

[Marylou]

I have a few thoughts, and since I'm not a writer they may not be as clear as they could be, but I'll try.

 

Some things I've gleaned from this thread . . .

 

1) the OP didn't mean submissive wives who were married to non-Christians--oh well,**smile**. I'm still looking for the other threads that are mentioned--I don't get here every day (good thing, too, my kids would be very thin!).

 

2) most of the posters have great marriages, which includes me, and we have so much for which to be thankful.

 

3) many (most?) folks seem to go with the "pragmatic marriage"--it works for us. You use what works for you.

 

4) I've learned a lot about what non-Christians think about the NT model of marriage.

 

Lastly, I had an Aha! moment as I was biking with my girls tonight. One of them kept riding so closely to me I was constantly trying to avoid an accident! [Oh well, she's only 9 and on a new bike--still getting used to it.] I thought to myself, "we should just get a tandem bike!" Then it occurred to me, my marriage is like a tandem bike ride through life (okay, you can stop laughing now; I warned you I am not a writer!). My DH and I are going forward together, but someone is obviously in the lead position. Is the person in front a better cyclist? A better map reader?? A better asker of directions??? Perhaps not, but he is there and I am right behind him (in more ways than one) and together we go forward. Both have the goal of moving toward the prize. I realize it all hinges on what your worldview is (like 99% of the threads here!). I am not trying to convince anyone to change his/her marriage. And I also realize that many folks stop the bike (maybe daily) and switch places, all the while considering their ride pretty smooth. And although I don't agree with that kind of trip (marriage), I would not belittle their actions or speak about their marriage in a derogatory way.

 

The word "arbitrary" came up in some of the posts. "It seems so arbitrary to have the man as head and the woman as the submissive one", some say. But I am convinced it is not only not arbitrary, but an "orderly" way to live in marriage, designed by an orderly God. Many of the posters mentioned that depending on who is more "passionate" about a matter, that's the route that's taken when making a decision. I do not mean this sarcastically, but to me THAT seems completely arbitrary! It's not like you can go to Ace Hardware and buy a "passion-o-meter" or "willing-to yield-scale"! I mean how do we measure who "has stronger feelings" about something? Don't we all have strong feelings when we believe something to be right/true? And FWIW in almost 20 years of marriage I also can't think of a time when DH and I strongly disagreed on something. We also talk and do the give and take thing.

 

Well, I guess I have another "lastly" . . . a leader (head of wife) is so much more than just a person who makes decisions.

 

But that will have to be another thread :001_smile:.

Edited July 14, 2009 by dmmosher
clarification

[Lovedtodeath]

Here they are, in case you have trouble finding them:

s/o on Impish's thread; I want to share something I read about submission

Marriage in Jeapordy Becoming A Proper Wife, Please Pray CC

[Marylou]

Here they are, in case you have trouble finding them:

s/o on Impish's thread; I want to share something I read about submission

Marriage in Jeapordy Becoming A Proper Wife, Please Pray CC

 

 

Thank you!

 

ETA: Wow! I had read a little of the top one, but never saw the bolded one. I'm still reading!

Edited July 14, 2009 by dmmosher

[Rosie_0801]

! I mean how do we measure who "has stronger feelings" about something? Don't we all have strong feelings when we believe something to be right/true?

 

It's pretty easy to tell who cares most when it comes to choosing a brand of toilet paper or whether to have pasta or couscous for dinner. Someone says "I really want/ don't want" and the other says, "if it means that much to ya!"

 

Seriously though, most decisions that need to be made are fairly inconsequential really. No one's life is going to be changed dramatically whichever way it goes. Now when it came to a big decision like homeschooling, dh was apprehensive. Naturally I put lots of effort into researching and convincing him it was a good thing to do. He still couldn't care less if we do or don't, but goes along with it because it's so important to me. I can't see anything wrong with serving reheated potato, but it bothers him, so I eat the potato, lol.

 

You guys must be really mellow if you can't tell who has stronger feelings about something. Are you both Librans or something? :svengo: Librans stress me! ;)

 

Rosie

[Marylou]

You guys must be really mellow if you can't tell who has stronger feelings about something. Are you both Librans or something? :svengo: Librans stress me! ;)

 

Rosie

 

You know what stresses me? Someone looking up at the stars when I'm on a bike with him :tongue_smilie:!!!!! Now that could cause a mess! ;)

[kiana]

You know what stresses me? Someone looking up at the stars when I'm on a bike with him :tongue_smilie:!!!!! Now that could cause a mess! ;)

 

It might depend on who's steering ;)

[lionfamily1999]

We don't. We keep talking until we work it through.

Perhaps it would be different if we hadn't married so young? We were still so much in process and as we grew, we worked hard on growing together, on building the patterns of communication and connection that would give us a good foundation... on ensuring that our marriage was always, even after the kids came, even during some intense periods of crisis, always our top priority.

 

We married in '99 (I was 19) and it's funny, because we have almost the same thing you have, lol, except that I am willing to take a no to keep things moving. We disagree about tons of things (New Orleans Jazz or New York Jazz was the subject of a four week discussion), but none of those are important enough for either of us to want to leave.

 

The analogies you came up with were really great and they let me find our analogy :) well, not an analogy, but a really good super crystal clear example...

 

This September will be our ten year wedding anniversary. Our plans are to drop the kids with my parents, pack some necessities in the book bag, turn west and ride. Dh has a nice little Yamaha and we're going to ride it as far west as we can get in two days. Then, wherever we're at, we're going to stay for a day and then turn around and go home. He drives, I carry the pack and lean when he wants me to lean. On a bike, you have to move how the other person moves and the driver has to make the calls on when to move. Sometimes the passenger can stop an accident by moving abruptly, but for the most part they have to move with the driver. That's us... I give us a vague heading (west) and then he anticipates the turns, I lean with him.

 

So, thanks, because I hadn't realized that our favorite thing to do was so much a mirror of our relationship.

[lionfamily1999]

It's pretty easy to tell who cares most when it comes to choosing a brand of toilet paper or whether to have pasta or couscous for dinner. Someone says "I really want/ don't want" and the other says, "if it means that much to ya!"

 

Seriously though, most decisions that need to be made are fairly inconsequential really. No one's life is going to be changed dramatically whichever way it goes. Now when it came to a big decision like homeschooling, dh was apprehensive. Naturally I put lots of effort into researching and convincing him it was a good thing to do. He still couldn't care less if we do or don't, but goes along with it because it's so important to me. I can't see anything wrong with serving reheated potato, but it bothers him, so I eat the potato, lol.

 

You guys must be really mellow if you can't tell who has stronger feelings about something. Are you both Librans or something? :svengo: Librans stress me! ;)

 

Rosie

I was raised Christian and my interest in astrology has always made me feel vaguely guilty, lol, but it can apply so well to some people. Dh is Aries and I'm Cancer. We were made for me to say, eh, it just doesn't matter that much, as long as my family is safe then, I'm okay. He's more of the this is the way it should be sort of person. What are you Rosie?

[Peek a Boo]

My knowledge of the Bible is patchy enough that, unfortunately, I am not sure I understand what you're saying here. But if you don't mind and have the time, I would like to try to understand. Would you care to point out some specific scriptures to me? Then I'll read them and we can continue this by pm if you like.

 

you betcha-- here is a basic explanation that includes several key scriptures.

 

I would also posit that --per my previous description of the Body of Christ as a literal analogy to our own body with its many different systems and organs-- the man as the head of the household does not mean that he is the one making ALL [or even the final] decisions. God gave us earthly analogies for a reason. The head is a vital part of the body, but it cannot do its job w/o the rest of the body: it is no more important than the other systems and indeed relies heavily ON those other systems.

 

Actually, what I don't like, and what makes me want to share my perspective more forcefully than I otherwise might, is having other people presume to express my thoughts and motives on my behalf. I think that one reason why Christians got involved with this thread, when it was addressed to non-Christians, was because posters were questioning the Christian point of view, and the motives behind them.

 

The only time I get involved in a discussion about Christianity --religious or secular-- is if a Christian viewpoint is specifically ASKED or twisted.

Asked --I will contribute. Twisted -- I will correct or untwist.

 

I strongly disagree with your comments, KingM, about why your comments on the other thread were offensive to some. Imo, it had nothing to do with "daring to offer different possible interpretations of Biblical verses"-- if that is what you truly believe happened in that thread, I would suggest that you misunderstand much about Christians and why we say and do what we do.

 

Generally speaking, and this is not directly solely at any one person, it's especially offensive to me when a person who does not share my faith tries to instruct me on how someone of my faith ought to believe, speak, live, etc. It's disingenuous at best, to use the Bible to condemn Christians, while at the same time rejecting it as any source of authority. Perhaps you would see many fewer "defensive" Christians if this ongoing practice were to be ended.

 

:iagree:

 

 

NO ONE knows exactly how the Bible should be interpreted. What does it matter that someone 'sees' something different in those words.....

 

I agree that one can interpret verses differently. One can dismiss verses and books and the whole Bible if they want to. But one can't say that the bible does not even SAY something factual when it is printed Right There. If you make the claim that "according to the Bible, Jesus never said anything about sex" when He did, that is factually wrong. You can say that "I don't believe the verses where Jesus mentions sex are relevant at all." One is a matter of basic reading comprehension, one is a matter of interpretation.

 

 

Women have been getting abortions way before the feminist movement.

 

Sure. But it wasn't legal, or considered a right before the liberal feminist movement. The "first wave" feminist movement was concerned with rights for ALL humans. The "second wave" feminist movement is distinctly characterized with the addition of death and destruction.

[mikeandlisa1995]

I know this will be hard to swallow for some people. I have grown tremendously in the last nearly 14 years of marriage. I am truly beginning to understand my role as a wife and mother! My husband and I know what to do to keep our marriage like glue! Do we have problems? Yes! We're still being perfected!

 

Well, regardless if you're a believer or non-believer, there should be absolute respect on both sides of the fence. While a husband should regard the wife's suggestions (provided their loving and not ranting), the husband is the head of the home and should make the final decision. A man feels very responsibile (I know I can't say that for all men) for the care of his family. On the other side of the coin, us women cannot be pushy and whine when we don't get our way. That definitely doesn't make for a happy marriage. It is our responsibility as women to prepare a loving home for our family (career or not!). Now I don't believe that husband's should be forceful, cruel, and abusive! They do have their place and should love and nurture their relationship with their wife.

 

I don't think you have to be a believer to see the importance of these scriptures.

 

Ephesians 5

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 

Colossians 3

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

 

Just by using these scriptures it will make the home be more at peace. Yes, there are times where we WILL have to bite our tongues! Let the husband make his decision. If it is a wrong one (and he may or may not have used your advice), he will see it (believe me he will he just may not admit it because pride kicks in).

 

I am not saying that by abiding to these scriptures it will be a cakewalk overnight. It took you that long to get there. It will take you that long to get back.

 

Lisa

[Greta]

Just wanted to thank KarenNC, Eliana, PeekABoo (and anyone else I am forgetting?) for sharing your scriptural and religious basis for your perspective. I am still reading and absorbing. Thanks for educating me!!! :D