S/O -- Christian Marriage Wife Submission

[smrtmama]

:iagree:

 

In my opinion, having any kind of power hierarchy in a personal relationship, be it a friendship or a marriage, is unhealthy. People have different strengths and weaknesses, obviously, but being in a relationship where one person is dominant and one is submissive, no matter how subtle and respect-filled, is generally going to lead to self-esteem issues and power trips.

 

Exactly. Power corrupts.

[Audrey]

I don't think the "ideal" model of wifely submission works at all. I think it's debasing at its very root.

 

Yes. This is what I think, exactly. But, then I consider the source of it, which I think is completely bogus anyway. It has no value to me and mine.

 

If others get their freak off on it, then fine. Whatever floats your boat.

[smrtmama]

Yes. This is what I think, exactly. But, then I consider the source of it, which I think is completely bogus anyway. It has no value to me and mine.

 

If others get their freak off on it, then fine. Whatever floats your boat.

 

*lip twitch* See this twitch? That's the twitch of a face trying desperately not to crack up over your comment.

[Nestof3]

Ladies, can we try to calmly discuss this?

 

I don't think I'm making my point very well in this discussion. Of course non-Christians are not going to accept that Paul was giving them a direct order. Let's step aside from that.

 

This conversation has been a sincere one that I initiated. There are men out there who do not desire their wives to submit to them in everything. They find it weird and insulting to their relationship. Sure, they want respect, and probably love as well. I didn't bring this post up to discuss respect.

 

I really think it's safe to say that in a Hebrew marriage during Abraham's time, a woman was expected to submit in everything. Sarah even called him Lord.

 

Did Paul see it the same way? Should we see it that way today?

[Lovedtodeath]

Abraham and Sarah also argued about something and God directed Abraham to listen to the woman!

 

Audrey, I feel that you should edit that. Your wording is upsetting to me.

[Nestof3]

Abraham and Sarah also argued about something and God directed Abraham to listen to the woman!

 

Audrey, I feel that you should edit that. Your wording is upsetting to me.

 

Sure, but was that really the norm?

[smrtmama]

Did Paul see it the same way? Should we see it that way today?

 

Personally, I think Paul was a misogynist who wrote from a sense of guilt over his own persecution of Christians prior to his conversion.

 

If the current incarnation of Christianity focused more on the teachings of Jesus, and less on the teachings of Paul, who never even met Jesus in person, I might actually be inclined to give more credence to Christianity.

[Tea Time]

Yes. This is what I think, exactly. But, then I consider the source of it, which I think is completely bogus anyway. It has no value to me and mine.

 

If others get their freak off on it, then fine. Whatever floats your boat.

 

Blech. No idea what that phrase means exactly, but blech.

 

There are obviously marriages where the women submit, according to their own definition(s) of that term, and it works just fine for them. They say so themselves, but the "I know what is best for everyone" crowd has to put them down, crush them into the ground, and make them feel like crap.

 

Can't people just be happy for each other without putting someone down? No. I guess not.

 

And please don't tell me that the reason you are against "submission" is that you are soooo worried that it will allow women to get abused. There are 6 billion reasons why someone might abuse someone else. Many men are abused (Yes - men get abused in marriage, too. Check out ifemist website to find out more) probably in the name of feminism, yet no one cares - no threads on that (rather like they don't care that the number of men going to college has dropped considerable and is way below the number of women). So what is the real reason for bashing this idea so hard? Any guesses?

 

Tolerance of true diversity, you know, the kind where people actually live or think differently than you, means you have to remember your manners. Manners, someone mentioned that, too.

 

As usual not one response to the actual point of my post. Cannibalization of tid-bits of posts rather than to the central points is also common.

[Melinda in VT]

I really think it's safe to say that in a Hebrew marriage during Abraham's time, a woman was expected to submit in everything. Sarah even called him Lord.

 

Did Paul see it the same way? Should we see it that way today?

 

As someone hanging out on the far liberal fringes of Christianity, who takes the Bible seriously but doesn't believe it is inerrant, my answers are as follows: "I've always assumed so but would loved to be proved wrong" and "No."

[TXMary2]

I agree to some extent that everyone submits to others, however, the examples of employment and police or law officials aren't the same type of relationship as a marriage. It doesn't seem like a good example. Your husband is not your employer. Your husband isn't a police officer who can write you a ticket or a judge who can send you tel jail. Totally different dynamics.

 

I was just responding to her statement that she is an adult and won't submit to any other adult, not specifically her husband.

[HRAAB]

I'm not a Christian and I don't believe God needs me to submit. I don't believe the Bible is literal. I don't think it's an accurate barometer for how I should live my life. I choose my behaviors based on what I think the moral, ethical thing to do (based on a combination of evidence and instinct), not because I think a higher power requires it of me.

 

I don't think I'm "strong-willed like a 90's woman." If anything, I identify much more with the second wave of Feminism (60s and 70s) than with the rather self-centered third wave of Feminism (90s and beyond). I think an empowered woman is timeless and has existed throughout history.

 

It might be interesting to have a conversation about spousal roles in marriage outside of any religious context or authority. I'm sure that many of the non-religious people on here have strong, healthy marriages that work as well as the Christian view of marriage - if there is just one Christian view. It would interesting to see how non-religious arrive at healthy, respectful marriages without Biblical instruction and guidance.

[smrtmama]

And please don't tell me that the reason you are against "submission" is that you are soooo worried that it will allow women to get abused. There are 6 billion reasons why someone might abuse someone else. Many men are abused (Yes - men get abused in marriage, too. Check out ifemist website to find out more) probably in the name of feminism, yet no one cares - no threads on that (rather like they don't care that the number of men going to college has dropped considerable and is way below the number of women). So what is the real reason for bashing this idea so hard? Any guesses?[/font][/color]

 

You don't really understand the foundations of or laws pertaining to domestic abuse if you think female-on-male abuse happens "in the name of feminism" or that "no one cares." Please educate yourself on this topic before you make statements of this nature.

 

Establishing a submission/dominance relationship (no matter whether the dominant partner is male or female) DOES increase the likelihood of abuse. If you believe otherwise, you are either not reading the available date of risk factors or are not being intellectually honest about what you are reading.

[Tea Time]

So what is the real reason for bashing this idea so hard? Any guesses?

 

 

Personally, I think Paul was a misogynist who wrote from a sense of guilt over his own persecution of Christians prior to his conversion.

 

If the current incarnation of Christianity focused more on the teachings of Jesus, and less on the teachings of Paul, who never even met Jesus in person, I might actually be inclined to give more credence to Christianity.

 

nt

[Nestof3]

It might be interesting to have a conversation about spousal roles in marriage outside of any religious context or authority. I'm sure that many of the non-religious people on here have strong, healthy marriages that work as well as the Christian view of marriage - if there is just one Christian view. It would interesting to see how non-religious arrive at healthy, respectful marriages without Biblical instruction and guidance.

 

I would be interested in that as well, and I am not asking those who are not Christians to not post, but I didn't want to see religion-bashing.

 

I do not think my brother and his wife are Christians, but they have a strong, thriving marriage, and I love the way my brother is so involved in his family. I hope I wasn't implying that only Christians' opinions mattered.

[HRAAB]

This is what happened in our marriage, but it took maybe a couple of months for it to fall apart. It took way more than a couple of months to go back. Yes, it was driven by me, and by women on a couple of message boards. Things would happen, I would go ask, "What do I do?" there would be answers that pushed more and more into (what I see now) as the ridiculous! It was as if you were supposed to remove your brain and implant your dh's - even to the point of trying to determine what *he* would do in a certain circumstance so that you could "submit to his will."

 

He got depressed and nasty, and I began to get angry - why would God have given me a brain if he didn't want me to use it? We were miserable! And yes, I think we are still facing the repercussions today of my "checking out" in order to submit (as defined by people like the Pearls.)

 

And this is not isolated - there are a myriad of message boards and definitely churches that teach just this thing. The patriarchy movement is at the extreme end of this continuum (at least in the Christian world.) Sometimes we just want to do the right thing, and certain groups, authors, etc. use Scripture to back up their claim that this is the right thing. So you do it, and when it gets ugly, you think you must not being doing it right, so you try harder. And it gets worse.

 

I have so much I could say on this topic but I think it's better to leave it alone. I was there, too. Back when I first started homeschooling and somebody handed me the Pearl book on child rearing. I got hooked into this whole idea of submission. For me, I was always mad at my dh because he wasn't the Godly man or leader he was supposed to be. It was the lowest spot our marriage ever hit not to mention my parenting skills about hit rock bottom, too. That was back in the 90's and we got out of it rather quickly, but it still did damage that took a long time to repair. I'm still working out all the damage it did to my belief system.

 

I still come across that radical patriarchy mode. It is there. People listen to it and are pulled in. And not just in Evangelical Protestant circles. The first time I encountered anything like it was in a Catholic homeschooling group.

 

It sounds like you're working through it, but it's not easy. Especially when it's tied to being a Godly woman and your salvation. Wow, just thinking about it makes me depressed.

[Audrey]

Abraham and Sarah also argued about something and God directed Abraham to listen to the woman!

 

Audrey, I feel that you should edit that. Your wording is upsetting to me.

 

 

Carmen, I hope by now you know that I have no problem with you, but I'm not going to edit my post, the gist of which is: I'll go my way, you go yours. And, that's just fine with me.

 

Chalk me up as a "lost soul" and let it go.

 

As to the OP's question of the cultural relevance of the topic. No, I think it has long since passed its cultural relevance. One could point to many trends over the past 100 years alone that prove this. Women in the workforce, single women households, the rise of stay-at-home dads (to name a very, very few) all indicate that, culturally, we have shifted the marital relationship paradigm away from the one as described in Abraham's time.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Audrey

[LizzyBee]

.......

If the current incarnation of Christianity focused more on the teachings of Jesus, and less on the teachings of Paul, who never even met Jesus in person, I might actually be inclined to give more credence to Christianity.

 

I just wanted to point out that it was Paul who began his treatise on the family with the words, "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God," and went on to say that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. How did Christ love the church? He "humbled himself, and became obedient unto death" (also Paul's words). I think Paul, like Jesus, was actually ahead of his time in how he thought men should treat women.

 

Personally, I don't think the problem is with the Biblical model of marriage and submission. The Biblical model emphasizes love, humility, and respect. It recognizes that women (generally speaking) have a greater need for love and security, while men (generally speaking) have a greater need for overt expressions of respect. There is nothing in the Bible that prevents a married woman from having important responsbilities, making decisions, or expressing her opinions and preferences. The woman of Proverbs 31 is an independent, intelligent, hard-working business woman who also cares for her family.

 

I do have problems with the non-Biblical manner in which certain passages are interpreted in most conservative Christian circles. I detest Bible studies that say "men are like this, and women are like that." People are more complex than that, and it is important for people to study their own spouse rather than a list of characteristics in a book. I detest the fact that some churches talk ad nauseum about wifely submission without ever mentioning how husbands should love their wives. I hate that some pastors talk about submission without ever dissecting the meaning of the Greek words that are translated to some form of submit or submission in English. I hate when they ignore the fact that the Greek words refer to a voluntary submission that has to do with looking out for one another's best interests, not blind obedience. And nothing gets my hackles up like a man who tells his wife that she has to submit to him. I have one friend whose husband even told her that he was going to continue putting his laundry on the floor rather than in the basket until she learned to pick it up without complaining. That man has totally, completely missed the point.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Children can be taught to have manners, respect for others and their positions, and tact in presenting their personal opinions without needing to be taught submission. You can be strong, respectful, thoughtful, and stand up for yourself all at the same time. I think teaching young girls that they need to submit to the will of others because they are in a position of power is a good way to condition them for abuse, IMO.

 

:iagree: I encourage my children to speak up for themselves rather than just submit to my imperfect will. I expect them to treat me with respect and to respect my authority, as I treat them with respect. I can be swayed by appropriately presented arguments and I am glad I can put my pride aside to listen to reason and truth no matter where it comes from.

[lionfamily1999]

Coming in a little late ;) I'm basing my anwers on the assumption that the hypothetical man and woman are Christians...

Now, aside from a man expecting his wife to submit for fear of not obeying Scripture, why else would a man expect his wife to be the only submissive one?

I'm not sure about a "fear of not obeying scripture" so much as not submitting to God's will. As far as expecting his wife to submit... well, I think our expectations are based on preconcieved notions, so either he believes all wives submit, or his wife has made it clear she would submit, or he assumes they both believe in a wife submitting.

If a man has a smart, hard-working, spiritually mature wife, why would he want a woman who is expected to obey as an adult might expect a child to obey?

I don't think that's what Biblical submission is about and I don't believe that many men would expect their wife to behave or obey like a child, except where the will of God is concerned, in which case we're all supposed to be like unto children.

Why wouldn't a man marry a woman that he considers his equal in both mind and spirit?

He could've been misled, or he could want to protect a woman. I don't know, something like that would really depend on the person. God's will isn't so clear in the whys very often, ime anyway. If he felt it was God's will and she was his soul mate, then it could very well be that she provides him with things he is lacking. I've seen couples like this that boggled my mind, but the spouse that seemed stronger in the brains department really seemed to find fulfillment in their other half.

Is it because they are control-hungry? Is it because all of us prefers to have our own way?

Sometimes, sure, but if we're talking about believing Christians I don't think so.

This post isn't really about whether a man has the Scriptural basis to demand submission, it's about why would he want to (other than fear of disobeying Scripture?)

I want my husband to be who God made him to be. In the case of "why" a husband would want his wife to submit, a good part of it would be, because she is meant to. The good, Godly marraiges I see have a husband that loves and respects his wife. She defers to him and he makes sure not to place stumbling blocks in her way. The husbands do not ask things from their wives that they know their wives could not deliver on and they (husbands) serve their wives, because that is the model that Christ set forth.

 

I do believe it makes sense, if it's taken with the full spirit and meaning rather than cherry picked. I don't believe the rules change or that scripture loses its meaning, because of cultural changes.

Edited February 28, 2010 by lionfamily1999

[HRAAB]

Time out. Let's keep it civil. No need to attack someone's education or call someone's beliefs sick and wrong. I think we can all agree that we see differently on this topic and that it is near and dear to us.

 

 

There is a huge divide here that is going to be hard to bridge between Christians and non-religious/non-Christian people. For Christians who follow the teachings on submission, they are truly trying to live God's will for them - according to their interpretation, of course, and even among Christians there's great diversity on this. For the non-Christian the Bible holds no authority. The starting points are totally different.

 

I want to say my marriage isn't at all reflective of Christian teaching, however, both my dh and I were raised in Christian homes and that is what we followed early in our marriage. Since then I have parted ways with Christianity, and my dh isn't really on the Christian track nor do I think he ever was totally. So while our marriage isn't based upon any Biblical model, I can't say that we aren't influenced that way simply because of our upbringing and the culture we live in. I give the Bible no more authority in my life than my own common sense, in fact, my own reason gets more. Even so, we are strongly influenced by Christian teaching.

 

Our marriage is based upon serving each other. Many times I go out of my way to do something special for him, or I put what I want aside temporarily. I cook meals for him that I don't care for (creamed tuna on mashed potatoes - yuck!) and eat it myself - little bit anyway. Her certainly does the same for me. I've seen him sacrifice many of his wants for the good of the family. We do it out of love and respect, not because of religious dogma or an inerrant book (such as the Bible). It's the right thing to do. We certainly still have our own identity and our own pursuits that the other doesn't share. He's a football fanatic. I mostly detest football. I let him have the whole house to himself on Sunday with snacks on the counter and a six-pack in the fridge. I've made choices he wasn't totally on board with, and he's done the same. I would never do anything that wasn't in the best interest of the family and neither would he. Those few times I did something he wasn't on board with had no reflection on the whole family - same with him. I love him. I enjoy serving him.

 

Early in our marriage and family we were very involved with a conservative Christian homeschooling group. There was great pressure for wives to be submissive, men to be the leaders, to raise children with the rod and all that. It was the worse time in our marriage. I know someone is going to say we really didn't understand the Biblical teaching or we were following man instead of God or something like that. That's not the way it felt at the time. It's what we were being instructed to do, it was the example set before us by married Christian leaders. I believe I do understand the Biblical teaching and Christian view of marriage. I've seen it work well, and I have seen it not work well at all. I think it's unfair to say that in those cases where it's not working well, it's because they don't understand Christianity or the Bible. I'm sure many will disagree.

 

I think our marriage might closely resemble many Christian marriages but we certainly don't follow the Bible anymore than we follow parenting books or marriage books. We do what we feel to be the right thing to do. But like I said, we certainly have Christian influence in our lives.

[Renee in NC]

Sure, but was that really the norm?

 

How could we ever possibly know? Can you name wives in the Bible that were the ideal of this kind of submission?

[dirty ethel rackham]

I have one friend whose husband even told her that he was going to continue putting his laundry on the floor rather than in the basket until she learned to pick it up without complaining. That man has totally, completely missed the point.

 

Now, in my house, that man would have found his laundry on the front lawn with the rest of his belongings as well as new locks on the door. Eeeewww. Double Eeeeewww.

[Nestof3]

How could we ever possibly know? Can you name wives in the Bible that were the ideal of this kind of submission?

 

Renee,

 

It's a simple matter of studying history and a woman's role in it/how they were viewed. It was a patriarchal arrangement. It's like asking me to prove that women were treated a specific way in the Middle Ages or in the Renaissance. There wasn't a Bible culture and then everyone else. I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for me to prove.

 

But, Paul did instruct women to submit to their husbands in all things. I'm trying to make sense of this whole thing, but so far no one has addressed what "all things" means.

 

When Sarah addressed Abraham as lord, I think she actually said "lord."

[HRAAB]

I have a question that sort of relates, I think. Do all Christians put equal emphasis on Paul's letters as they do the gospels??? I know some tend to not take the OT literally, whereas they do take the NT literally. I know I was always inclined to pay more attention to what Jesus said than what Paul said. Of course, Paul is such a controversial fellow.

[Nestof3]

I have a question that sort of relates, I think. Do all Christians put equal emphasis on Paul's letters as they do the gospels??? I know some tend to not take the OT literally, whereas they do take the NT literally. I know I was always inclined to pay more attention to what Jesus said than what Paul said. Of course, Paul is such a controversial fellow.

 

Every church I've ever been to does. I think most Christians (I've met in real life) do.

[LizzyBee]

Now, in my house, that man would have found his laundry on the front lawn with the rest of his belongings as well as new locks on the door. Eeeewww. Double Eeeeewww.

 

:iagree: But you know, it's not so easy to leave (or kick him out) when you have kids and your spouse does have good points, too. OTOH, because of the way this man treated his wife, her kids didn't respect her either.

Edited March 1, 2010 by LizzyBee

[SonshineLearner]

But, Paul did instruct women to submit to their husbands in all things. I'm trying to make sense of this whole thing, but so far no one has addressed what "all things" means.

 

When Sarah addressed Abraham as lord, I think she actually said "lord."

 

I think that submission to each other is important, submission to the husband... is important.

 

I also know that if my husband said he was leaving the laundry on the floor for me to pick up, I'd first honestly ask if that is how he'd treat his mom, how his mom would have him treat me, how he wants his (potential) son to treat his wife... how he'd want his daughter's husband to treat him...

 

And... if all this didn't work, I'd probably tell him that we'll see what he looks like in his last of last clothes, because.... I'm gonna trust that "as Christ loves the church" is going to reign in this instance. I might even offer him a change of MY clothes.... in the event that a clothes fairy didn't materialize for him.

 

I might pick up his clothes, but you can bet that it wouldn't last for long.

 

:D

[Renee in NC]

Renee,

 

It's a simple matter of studying history and a woman's role in it/how they were viewed. It was a patriarchal arrangement. It's like asking me to prove that women were treated a specific way in the Middle Ages or in the Renaissance. There wasn't a Bible culture and then everyone else. I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for me to prove.

 

But, Paul did instruct women to submit to their husbands in all things. I'm trying to make sense of this whole thing, but so far no one has addressed what "all things" means.

 

When Sarah addressed Abraham as lord, I think she actually said "lord."

 

You are totally misunderstanding me. Your comment about Sarah not being the norm led me to think about other women in the Bible - how did they act? I can't think of one that wasn't, well, normal. I don't see a lot of subordinate women in the Bible. Even Esther risked her *life* to stand up for what she believed in. Sarah called him "lord" but she also made lots of big decisions on that *he* followed (most involving Hagar.)

 

Then, look at literature. Sure, women were not allowed to own property or do lots of other things - I won't argue that we haven't lived in a male dominated society. However, when I think about literature through time, I see more "normal" women. I see women who sometimes stood up to their husbands. Women who acted, well, like most women act. I don't see a lot of meek, quiet women who don't use their own heads. Even in very patriarchal societies, women generally have their spheres of influence and are allowed a certain amount of freedom within those spheres.

 

There are men in every society who are bullies. There are men who are controlling and micromanaging. There are plenty of women that way, too. I just wonder, sometimes, if we have come up with an idea of submission that is impossible to achieve and still keep your mental health, you know?

 

As far as your original question, I asked my dh one time *why* he didn't want a submissive, quiet, meek wife. He told me because it felt more like a parent/child relationship than a husband/wife. He doesn't want to take care of someone else. He doesn't want to have to make all the decisions. He wants a capable, strong woman who can take care of things while also keeping his weaknesses in check. You know the saying, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"? I think it applies to marriage as well.

 

I will also say this - I am not willing to take 3 words (in all things) and create an entire theology around it. I think it is better to look at Scripture as a whole, rather than to dissect word by word. What do we see throughout Scripture?

[lionfamily1999]

I have a question that sort of relates, I think. Do all Christians put equal emphasis on Paul's letters as they do the gospels??? I know some tend to not take the OT literally, whereas they do take the NT literally. I know I was always inclined to pay more attention to what Jesus said than what Paul said. Of course, Paul is such a controversial fellow.

At our church the emphasis is the Bible as a whole... In our Bible study we've been reading Corinthians for months and from that I would say that, in our church, the other books in the New Testament are given at least as much coverage as the gospels, if not more so simply because the gospels are pretty well known and understood. However, while reading any of the other books the gospels are used as reference points. So, I suppose the gospels are the center and the other books the spokes, iykwIm.

[Aubrey]

1. Most people (that I've met) who believe in some uber-conservative form of submission believe in levels of it. While they tend to ignore the mutual submission of spouses, they do claim to believe in church authority/submission. For ex, if a man's not working, taking proper care of his family, the church elders/pastor should go talk to the man.

 

These people think that wives should obey their husbands even when their husbands seem to be making poor choices. But what if the pastor/church elders advise a man/his family to do something that seems (to the man) like a poor choice? Not only will he not obey, chances are, he'll find another church. Some will even start their own.

 

This more than anything indicates a true double-mindedness on the issue. A man who demands obedience must be willing to pay it *somewhere.*

 

2. "Helpmeet" as it's used w/ regard to Eve is a word that I've only seen used w/ regard to God. Iow, if you look it up in Strong's, there's another word (or more) when one person is helping another; there's another when God provides divine help. In the NT, other than wives, this term is almost exclusively used for the Holy Spirit.

 

So yeah, maybe we "help" our dh's, but maybe it's a kind of divine help that should be treasured & revered instead of always having to be measured & defended.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Aubrey

[Erica in PA]

Coming in a little late ;) I'm basing my anwers on the assumption that the hypothetical man and woman are Christians...

Now, aside from a man expecting his wife to submit for fear of not obeying Scripture, why else would a man expect his wife to be the only submissive one?

I'm not sure about a "fear of not obeying scripture" so much as not submitting to God's will. As far as expecting his wife to submit... well, I think our expectations are based on preconcieved notions, so either he believes all wives submit, or his wife has made it clear she would submit, or he assumes they both believe in a wife submitting.

If a man has a smart, hard-working, spiritually mature wife, why would he want a woman who is expected to obey as an adult might expect a child to obey?

I don't think that's what Biblical submission is about and I don't believe that many men would expect their wife to behave or obey like a child, except where the will of God is concerned, in which case we're all supposed to be like unto children.

Why wouldn't a man marry a woman that he considers his equal in both mind and spirit?

He could've been misled, or he could want to protect a woman. I don't know, something like that would really depend on the person. God's will isn't so clear in the whys very often, ime anyway. If he felt it was God's will and she was his soul mate, then it could very well be that she provides him with things he is lacking. I've seen couples like this that boggled my mind, but the spouse that seemed stronger in the brains department really seemed to find fulfillment in their other half.

Is it because they are control-hungry? Is it because all of us prefers to have our own way?

Sometimes, sure, but if we're talking about believing Christians I don't think so.

This post isn't really about whether a man has the Scriptural basis to demand submission, it's about why would he want to (other than fear of disobeying Scripture?)

I want my husband to be who God made him to be. In the case of "why" a husband would want his wife to submit, a good part of it would be, because she is meant to. The good, Godly marraiges I see have a husband that loves and respects his wife. She defers to him and he makes sure not to place stumbling blocks in her way. The husbands do not ask things from their wives that they know their wives could not deliver on and they (husbands) serve their wives, because that is the model that Christ set forth.

 

I do believe it makes sense, if it's taken with the full spirit and meaning rather than cherry picked. I don't believe the rules change or that scripture loses its meaning, because of cultural changes.

 

:iagree: I would just add this: While there certainly are men, Christian and otherwise, who want their wives to submit to them for reasons other than a desire to obey Scripture (power trip, abuse, ego, etc.), I think it's faulty reasoning to conclude that there is a bad motive like this among all, or even most, Christian men. My husband wants me to follow the Bible's teaching for wives for the same reason I want him to follow the Bible's teaching for husbands-- because we are all called to obedience, and because we each know the blessings that come from being obedient. There are also other reasons why following God's plan for marriages works well on a practical level, but just even if there weren't benefits and blessings in following God, it's still what we're called to do.

 

Imo, the fact that I may be intelligent, capable, skilled, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. My husband knows my strengths, and considers all that I say, very carefully-- more carefully than he would consider the words of anyone else in the world. That is not a weak place to be in-- my knowledge and abilities are put to full use, constantly.

[Guest mrsjamiesouth]

You are totally misunderstanding me. Your comment about Sarah not being the norm led me to think about other women in the Bible - how did they act? I can't think of one that wasn't, well, normal. I don't see a lot of subordinate women in the Bible. Even Esther risked her *life* to stand up for what she believed in. Sarah called him "lord" but she also made lots of big decisions on that *he* followed (most involving Hagar.)

 

Then, look at literature. Sure, women were not allowed to own property or do lots of other things - I won't argue that we haven't lived in a male dominated society. However, when I think about literature through time, I see more "normal" women. I see women who sometimes stood up to their husbands. Women who acted, well, like most women act. I don't see a lot of meek, quiet women who don't use their own heads. Even in very patriarchal societies, women generally have their spheres of influence and are allowed a certain amount of freedom within those spheres.

 

There are men in every society who are bullies. There are men who are controlling and micromanaging. There are plenty of women that way, too. I just wonder, sometimes, if we have come up with an idea of submission that is impossible to achieve and still keep your mental health, you know?

 

I will also say this - I am not willing to take 3 words (in all things) and create an entire theology around it. I think it is better to look at Scripture as a whole, rather than to dissect word by word. What do we see throughout Scripture?

 

 

A perfect Biblical example would be Abigail, Nabal, and David; 1Samuel 25. In 1Peter he speaks about wives being submissive to their husbands so if they do not believe they will after seeing their wife's behavior. You are right, it is impossible to be submissive on your own, it can only be accomplished through the Holy Spirit, that is why your submission would be such a great testimony. It is about choosing freely to lay down your own will and follow God's will.

In the dictionary the definition of submissive is: unresistingly or humbly obedient.

This does not make you weak and I do not believe you should allow yourself to be a punching bag or a doormat. Abigail was a very strong woman but she was also submissive.

[Renee in NC]

A perfect Biblical example would be Abigail, Nabal, and David; 1Samuel 25. In 1Peter he speaks about wives being submissive to their husbands so if they do not believe they will after seeing their wife's behavior. You are right, it is impossible to be submissive on your own, it can only be accomplished through the Holy Spirit, that is why your submission would be such a great testimony. It is about choosing freely to lay down your own will and follow God's will.

In the dictionary the definition of submissive is: unresistingly or humbly obedient.

This does not make you weak and I do not believe you should allow yourself to be a punching bag or a doormat. Abigail was a very strong woman but she was also submissive.

 

But Abigail didn't obey her husband humbly, she went around him and saved him from his own stupidity! That isn't the model of submission that I have seen espoused at all. If Abigail would have gone to a modern day conservative Christian message board, she would be told to stay out of it in the name of submission. You know, if he misses his exit don't tell him, let him figure it out on his own.

[Aubrey]

A perfect Biblical example would be Abigail, Nabal, and David; 1Samuel 25. In 1Peter he speaks about wives being submissive to their husbands so if they do not believe they will after seeing their wife's behavior. You are right, it is impossible to be submissive on your own, it can only be accomplished through the Holy Spirit, that is why your submission would be such a great testimony. It is about choosing freely to lay down your own will and follow God's will.

In the dictionary the definition of submissive is: unresistingly or humbly obedient.

This does not make you weak and I do not believe you should allow yourself to be a punching bag or a doormat. Abigail was a very strong woman but she was also submissive.

 

Not to her dh, she wasn't. She went behind his back to provide food for a man he had *specifically* said he didn't want to give food to. She saw his actions (inaction) as a threat to herself, her family, her dh, & she worked *against* him. As it turns out, she was right & saved lots of lives. God struck her fool husband dead.

 

The story of Abigail is in direct contradiction to Paul's words about submission. What that means, I'm not completely sure, but Paul makes me grumpy sometimes. :001_smile:

[Renee in NC]

Not to her dh, she wasn't. She went behind his back to provide food for a man he had *specifically* said he didn't want to give food to. She saw his actions (inaction) as a threat to herself, her family, her dh, & she worked *against* him. As it turns out, she was right & saved lots of lives. God struck her fool husband dead.

 

The story of Abigail is in direct contradiction to Paul's words about submission. What that means, I'm not completely sure, but Paul makes me grumpy sometimes. :001_smile:

 

I would not jump to the idea that Paul was wrong - it may be that the interpretation of Scripture is faulty.;)

[Lovedtodeath]

Renee,

 

It's a simple matter of studying history and a woman's role in it/how they were viewed. It was a patriarchal arrangement. It's like asking me to prove that women were treated a specific way in the Middle Ages or in the Renaissance. There wasn't a Bible culture and then everyone else. I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for me to prove.

 

But, Paul did instruct women to submit to their husbands in all things. I'm trying to make sense of this whole thing, but so far no one has addressed what "all things" means.

 

When Sarah addressed Abraham as lord, I think she actually said "lord."

1. Sarah was thinking to herself when she said that, she wasn't addressing Abraham.

 

2. God's people were very different than the prevailing culture of the time. The law set them apart.

 

I would not jump to the idea that Paul was wrong - it may be that the interpretation of Scripture is faulty.;)

Yes. This.

[Aubrey]

I would not jump to the idea that Paul was wrong - it may be that the interpretation of Scripture is faulty.;)

 

Well, I didn't say he was wrong. Just that he makes me grumpy sometimes. Because he IS so easy to misinterpret.

[Renee in NC]

Well, I didn't say he was wrong. Just that he makes me grumpy sometimes. Because he IS so easy to misinterpret.

 

Sorry - I didn't mean for it to come across so snarky. What I was really trying to say was when Paul doesn't line up with the rest of Scripture, we should look at how we (general we) are intepreting him (and how he has been interpreted through time.)

[Parrothead]

Sorry - I didn't mean for it to come across so snarky. What I was really trying to say was when Paul doesn't line up with the rest of Scripture, we should look at how we (general we) are intepreting him (and how he has been interpreted through time.)

I'm definitely going to go with what Jesus said over what Paul said.

 

I really think a Jewish woman's stance on submission needs to be looked at. If I had to go by any Biblical model for submission I'd go with the Jewish one.

[lionfamily1999]

:iagree: I would just add this: While there certainly are men, Christian and otherwise, who want their wives to submit to them for reasons other than a desire to obey Scripture (power trip, abuse, ego, etc.), I think it's faulty reasoning to conclude that there is a bad motive like this among all, or even most, Christian men. My husband wants me to follow the Bible's teaching for wives for the same reason I want him to follow the Bible's teaching for husbands-- because we are all called to obedience, and because we each know the blessings that come from being obedient. There are also other reasons why following God's plan for marriages works well on a practical level, but just even if there weren't benefits and blessings in following God, it's still what we're called to do.

 

Imo, the fact that I may be intelligent, capable, skilled, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. My husband knows my strengths, and considers all that I say, very carefully-- more carefully than he would consider the words of anyone else in the world. That is not a weak place to be in-- my knowledge and abilities are put to full use, constantly.

Beautifully put.

Not to her dh, she wasn't. She went behind his back to provide food for a man he had *specifically* said he didn't want to give food to. She saw his actions (inaction) as a threat to herself, her family, her dh, & she worked *against* him. As it turns out, she was right & saved lots of lives. God struck her fool husband dead.

 

The story of Abigail is in direct contradiction to Paul's words about submission. What that means, I'm not completely sure, but Paul makes me grumpy sometimes. :001_smile:

One thing I've noticed about the NT vs OT is that is seems less black and white, imo. Put God first, love your neighbor as yourself... neither of those, imo, have the detailed, specific nature of the laws in the OT.

 

I think, especially when looking at Paul's writings, the exceptions are there to remind us that there are always special circumstances and we should ultimately do the will of God, even when it doesn't make sense or seems counter to what we believe to be true. When Paul talks about getting married, in his letter to the church of Corinth, he says specifically that it's not a law/rule. He makes exceptions or loop holes, for his own admonishment. Why? I think it's because there are generally good idea guide lines and then there are the rules, iykwIm.

 

It's generally a good idea to be a submissive wife, but if your husband turns out to be a crazed nut and is NOT being led by the will of God, then you have to do it alone (and sometimes that means standing up to the one you were supposed to submit to). Christ even says that he will cause family members to split, if you're a child of God, but your parents aren't, you do what you can to honor them, but you don't allow it to keep you from God's will. We're also under government leaders, that we're supposed to obey, but NOT when it's contrary to God's will.

 

So, I don't believe most of the newer rules are to be followed regardless of what's going on. They're meant to make doing God's will easier, and if they become a hindrance then they're prayerfully stretched if not broken.

[fivetails]

 

There are obviously marriages where the women submit, according to their own definition(s) of that term, and it works just fine for them. They say so themselves, but the "I know what is best for everyone" crowd has to put them down, crush them into the ground, and make them feel like crap.

 

Can't people just be happy for each other without putting someone down? No. I guess not.

 

 

 

Yes ~ I don't know why this topic always turns into a big argument...

 

I believe that my husband is the 'head' of our home ~ and I'm *happy* with that. Our relationship is great - in fact, it's better than it was before I learned what the bible had to say on this matter.

 

Why would *anyone else* get their knickers in a twist over how two other adults choose to view their relationship to each other?

[Nestof3]

I wasn't really trying to say that a man has a bad motive for it, rather, I was assuming he did (like following Scripture).

 

My original question regarded the fact that a husband really does have some control over how much a woman submits. I am not speaking of the attitude of a wife toward her husband.

 

An example of the contrast would be:

 

A wife's attitude of submission (or ever deference):

 

Dear, what would you like to have for dinner tomorrow night? I was thinking of making meat loaf.

 

An example of when a woman would be required to submit (according to what Paul said -- in everything) would be:

 

Wife has just finished making up the meatloaf and starting to peel the potatoes when husband comes home. He sees what she has chosen for dinner and says, "I was really hoping for some tacos tonight."

 

Yes, the husband has the "right" to require her (according to the fact that she should submit in everything), but why would he if he loves her?

 

An example dealing more with the mind of a woman is:

 

Tim asks if he can spend the night with Joe. Tim has never spent the night at a person's house before. The mom's brow raises, remembering what she heard from a neighbor whose son spent the night there one night. The Dad (the leader) says yes, despite the brows raised.

 

In a contrasting relationship, the Dad would have recognized his wife as an intelligent, even spiritual woman, and told Timmy that he and his mom were going to discuss it. They go to the bedroom, and the mom then tells about what she heard. Joey's older brother is bullyish, and there were Playboy magazines sitting in the bathroom.

 

Now, this is an even more critical moment of how the conversation could go.

 

The Dad could say, "I see no problem there. I am the head, and I say a boy's got to toughen up and face the real world. You cannot baby him forever"

 

His mom, still uneasy about this has some choices:

 

(1) submit (without saying a word as Paul says -- the husband will be won over by her demeanor -- her submissiveness)

 

(2) freak out, call her husband a jerk, etc.

 

(3) concede (someone has to, I suppose), but make sure her husband knows that she is firmly against it.

 

My original question is, if a man marries a woman because he admires her intelligence and spirituality, why would he want to quickly pull out the "I'm the head" card?

 

Many marriages thrive without anyone doing it. According to Paul, a slave should obey his master. But, isn't it far better if the person is freed and has no master at all?

 

Paul does say:

 

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. And {it was} not Adam {who} was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

 

Yes, I know this is in a church setting, but it does reveal what he thought about woman.

Edited March 1, 2010 by nestof3

[AngelBee]

And the men and women who made the laws were vote into power by the people who follow the laws. That's not submission. We vote people in to make laws. This is what we asked them to do when we voted. I vote in every election, including the rinky-dink local stuff, so I feel pretty confident in saying that I'm not submitting to laws, I'm a party to making them.

 

 

You are not DIRECTLY making them however. You are trusting that they will do what you wish. And people choose their spouses in most cases as well. :)

 

I think we must have different ideas of "submission." It suggests, to me, an unequal balance of PERSONAL power (not being lower on a work hierarchy or following laws of the country in which you reside).

 

This is where most of the issue is with submission. It is NOT being a doormat. I am a strong, stubborn, opinionated woman who is submissive to my husband. :) It is not about power. It is about aligning myself in a position that can accomplish the most and have the most effect in our lives to glorify God.

[Melinda in VT]

This is where most of the issue is with submission. It is NOT being a doormat. I am a strong, stubborn, opinionated woman who is submissive to my husband. :) It is not about power. It is about aligning myself in a position that can accomplish the most and have the most effect in our lives to glorify God.

 

AngelBee, if you don't mind, can you look at the scenarios Dawn posted and tell me how those would play out in your marriage? I'm curious, but I understand if you think it's too personal.

[Impish]

We also divvy up the work and decision making based on who has the most past experience or best skills for the job. I respect my husband's intelligence and his personal power, so if he's the best man for the job, he should be the one to do it. It doesn't mean I'm submitting to his power, but I respect that he HAS power and skills, and it makes sense that he uses them when it's appropriate. He does the same for me. It doesn't take away my power or make me less of a equal for us to each handle the jobs we're best at doing.

So do we. As I posted this summer, I feel/felt called to follow a more submissive role as a wife and as someone walking the Christian path. My marriage has improved as a result, and continues to flow smoothly when I keep this in mind. For me, being submissive was to drop the ongoing power battle to lead the family, and to entrust it to my husband. It means that my strengths are still used to benefit my family, but that I don't try and lead it.

I just wanted to point out that it was Paul who began his treatise on the family with the words, "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God," and went on to say that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. How did Christ love the church? He "humbled himself, and became obedient unto death" (also Paul's words). I think Paul, like Jesus, was actually ahead of his time in how he thought men should treat women.

 

*snip*

 

I do have problems with the non-Biblical manner in which certain passages are interpreted in most conservative Christian circles. I detest Bible studies that say "men are like this, and women are like that." People are more complex than that, and it is important for people to study their own spouse rather than a list of characteristics in a book. I detest the fact that some churches talk ad nauseum about wifely submission without ever mentioning how husbands should love their wives. I hate that some pastors talk about submission without ever dissecting the meaning of the Greek words that are translated to some form of submit or submission in English. I hate when they ignore the fact that the Greek words refer to a voluntary submission that has to do with looking out for one another's best interests, not blind obedience. And nothing gets my hackles up like a man who tells his wife that she has to submit to him. I have one friend whose husband even told her that he was going to continue putting his laundry on the floor rather than in the basket until she learned to pick it up without complaining. That man has totally, completely missed the point.

:iagree:It never fails to amaze me how the focus is solely on the woman's submission, yet the command for the husband is completely ignored in these discussions.

Yes ~ I don't know why this topic always turns into a big argument...

 

I believe that my husband is the 'head' of our home ~ and I'm *happy* with that. Our relationship is great - in fact, it's better than it was before I learned what the bible had to say on this matter.

 

Why would *anyone else* get their knickers in a twist over how two other adults choose to view their relationship to each other?

:iagree:The attitude I've picked up on seems to be the desire to 'educate' women out of their decision to follow the Bible and do as others choose to do. The idea that submission is a GOOD thing in marriages such as mine, that it builds rather than detracts seems to be abhorrent, alien, ignorant to some. The hilarious part, to my mind, is that nobody who knows me would consider me weak, a door mat, mindless...my husband least of all. Heck, he considers dyeing my hair red "like a warning on a box of dynamite" :lol:

[AngelBee]

I just wanted to point out that it was Paul who began his treatise on the family with the words, "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God," and went on to say that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. How did Christ love the church? He "humbled himself, and became obedient unto death" (also Paul's words). I think Paul, like Jesus, was actually ahead of his time in how he thought men should treat women.

 

Personally, I don't think the problem is with the Biblical model of marriage and submission. The Biblical model emphasizes love, humility, and respect. It recognizes that women (generally speaking) have a greater need for love and security, while men (generally speaking) have a greater need for overt expressions of respect. There is nothing in the Bible that prevents a married woman from having important responsbilities, making decisions, or expressing her opinions and preferences. The woman of Proverbs 31 is an independent, intelligent, hard-working business woman who also cares for her family.

 

I do have problems with the non-Biblical manner in which certain passages are interpreted in most conservative Christian circles. I detest Bible studies that say "men are like this, and women are like that." People are more complex than that, and it is important for people to study their own spouse rather than a list of characteristics in a book. I detest the fact that some churches talk ad nauseum about wifely submission without ever mentioning how husbands should love their wives. I hate that some pastors talk about submission without ever dissecting the meaning of the Greek words that are translated to some form of submit or submission in English. I hate when they ignore the fact that the Greek words refer to a voluntary submission that has to do with looking out for one another's best interests, not blind obedience. And nothing gets my hackles up like a man who tells his wife that she has to submit to him. I have one friend whose husband even told her that he was going to continue putting his laundry on the floor rather than in the basket until she learned to pick it up without complaining. That man has totally, completely missed the point.

:iagree:

[AngelBee]

AngelBee, if you don't mind, can you look at the scenarios Dawn posted and tell me how those would play out in your marriage? I'm curious, but I understand if you think it's too personal.

 

Ok...I think there are two posted (correct me if I am missing others please)

 

1) meatloaf vs tacos

 

2) having a sleepover at ____ house

 

Thinking...

[SonshineLearner]

IF I had to choose between the meatloaf -v- tacos and the sleepover... I might love and logic him. Sure we can have tacos, if you'd like to have meatloaf tomorrow. Dinner will be ready in about an hour and a half. :-)

 

But the sleepover?? Sure he can spend the night there. Just ask them where his mom will have a bed. OVER my DEAD body would my son sleep in an unsafe house.

 

With a smile, of course ;-)

[AngelBee]

Ok...I think there are two posted (correct me if I am missing others please)

 

1) meatloaf vs tacos

 

2) having a sleepover at ____ house

 

Thinking...

 

These are actually hard ones for me. :blush: My dh does most of the cooking for dinners and we don't do sleepovers at other peoples houses usually. :D So these are really a stretch for me.

[kmacnchs]

An example of when a woman would be required to submit (according to what Paul said -- in everything) would be:

 

Wife has just finished making up the meatloaf and starting to peel the potatoes when husband comes home. He sees what she has chosen for dinner and says, "I was really hoping for some tacos tonight."

 

Yes, the husband has the "right" to require her (according to the fact that she should submit in everything), but why would he if he loves her?

 

If the dh is loving the wife as Christ loved the church, he would not do that (or my dh wouldn't b/c cooking is not my fav). I have never heard of a dh saying "You must submit woman!" so that scenario is hard for me to imagine...

 

An example dealing more with the mind of a woman is:

 

Tim asks if he can spend the night with Joe. Tim has never spent the night at a person's house before. The mom's brow raises, remembering what she heard from a neighbor whose son spent the night there one night. The Dad (the leader) says yes, despite the brows raised.

 

That is something that could happen at our house but then I could talk to my dh asap in private, voice my concerns and he would have no issues with reversing his permission. There are times that I am more protective than my dh and he vetos me (but he's the head and I am okay with that) but I think the bullying and p0rn are extreme so again, *that* wouldn't happen if I told him *those* things!

 

His mom, still uneasy about this has some choices:

 

(1) submit (without saying a word as Paul says -- the husband will be won over by her demeanor -- her submissiveness)

 

again, hard to say b/c I know my dh and he would NEVER allow our children in a home w/p0rn. but I have not seen a situation with *us* where I should do anything but submit happily (not that I always do, but one day...)

 

My original question is, if a man marries a woman because he admires her intelligence and spirituality, why would he want to quickly pull out the "I'm the head" card?

 

again, I've never known someone who has done that!