S/O -- Christian Marriage Wife Submission

[Jean in Newcastle]

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.

 

Tacos - "Dear, are you saying that you want me to put aside tonight's dinner and make tacos instead?" I don't see anything non-submissive in asking for clarification. Most mature men would say, "No, but could we have tacos tomorrow?" (Expressing a desire is not an express command.) I mean there are times when I look in the pantry and don't see the makings for chocolate cake and sigh because I really had a hankering for that cake!

 

Sleep-over: "Dear, can we talk this over privately first? There is some information I think you need to have." No one can make decisions without all the facts. The husband could say "No, I don't want to talk privately" but most mature men would see the wisdom in having that talk.

 

Personally, I think it is super important for a woman to make sure that a man she's interested in marrying respects women in general and is not a misogynist. I also think that it is important that the woman make sure that the man has wisdom and discernment that would include listening to his help-meet! My husband has delegated much of his authority to me in many areas. He does that because he has said that he recognizes that I have the skills or is more involved in the situation than he is. He is not abdicating his leadership but he is using it wisely.

 

I have bit my tongue and followed my husband in a couple of instances where I would not have made the same decision. It was hard for a couple of reasons. One reason was because I had to put aside my own pride. Another reason was doing it my way would have made life easier for me. In each situation (and there have only been 2 major ones in 16 years of marriage) I later saw the benefit of having followed my husband's decision. BTW - neither time did he say "you must follow my plan". In both situations he said "I feel strongly that I need to do xyz. I would love for you to be beside me in this. But if you want to do otherwise, I will not stop you." I chose to go along side of him even though I did not want to.

[TXMomof4]

From Ephesians:

 

Wives, {be subject} to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

 

But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives {ought to be} to their husbands in everything.

 

Again in Peter,

 

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any {of them} are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,

 

I understand you can argue that men should mutually submit because all people should submit to one another out of deference, but the emphasis on wives submitting seems rather clear.

 

 

But, my thought process has been why a man would want that sort of relationship as opposed to one of mutual respect and love.

 

I think that the rest of the passages on submission get so lost.

 

In Eph. 5 -

 

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

 

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

It isn't a one-sided command. The man has just a much responsibility to love and care for his wife - not demean her into submission. We are one flesh - I am part of him, he is part of me. Together we have a relationship that should mirror Christ and the church.

[Sara in WA]

A must read on this topic - Womanly Dominion by Mark Chanski. I'm almost done with this book and it has been a wonderful read on our role as a Christian woman. Get it, read it!

[MelanieM]

I think I'll ask this question somewhere else, at another time. :)

Edited March 2, 2010 by MelanieM

[Aubrey]

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.

 

Just to clarify--the woman was *deceived.* The man saw what was going on & *willfully" sinned. I think it's easy to read this passage & forget about Adam's role in the Fall & come to the conclusion that we women should be quiet because we're more prone to being deceived & messing stuff up when that's not the case at all.

[Retired]

I think that more often than not, any successful, long-term relationship requires some level of submission. To me, submission is equivalent to grace, mercy, and love. It's agreeing to disagree, it's not insisting on your own way, turning the other cheek, etc. I don't think submitting is being a doormat without an opinion, but it is, at the heart, an attitude of considering others above yourself (which is not that they are better, just that your focus is on being a peacemaker). You learn when to step-off and step-back.

 

I'm a strong personality in many ways and I am just as much a voice in my house as my husband. There is a mutual submission - acceptance. We accept each other and know each other very well. I know his limitations, he knows mine, he knows when to yield in my direction and I know when to yield in his. It's not perfect, by far, but it is the attitude and heart of our marriage. The word submission feels threatening to even hear and I wish another word for it would be used.

 

Any man that is insitent on his wife being "submissive" in a way that builds his ego, is not displaying love. I also don't think it's healthy to be a wife that submits in that way to a man that is not leading in the right direction. Women were given a voice, and I don't believe it's Gods will or desire for any of them to be abused. I've seen several women end up divorced because they thought they were doing the right thing by "submitting" - when what they needed to be doing was standing up and having some self-respect and dignity.

 

:iagree:

 

My DH and I are "in tuned" to each of our strength and weaknesses. He doesn't question my home school choices and I don't question his car care choices. We discuss stuff that we both are not sure of and make a choice together. He would go crazy if I waited around for his guidance on everything.

 

I am pretty much a "tom boy". I do all our home maintenance. I can do paint, plumbing, electrical work but I am not as good at it as he is. So if I get in the middle of a project and need help. I'll call him. He calls me about kids medicine and stuff.. He doesn't have to know it all and be lord of his castle to feel respected.

 

I grew up with my parents marriage. My father was lord of the castle and my mother did not make a decision about anything without his approval. She didn't even decide when I could wear a training bra. My dad made the decision.

 

I have a SIL with this type marriage. She was a fun lady to be around and the longer she is in those marriage the more quite and reserved she has become. She says she is being meek like the bible call her to be.

 

I can tell you I have only meet a few women who were meek (I say in the holy spirit gifted in meekness) they were lovely ladies verses her idea of meekness that just seem creepy. My DH can't even stand to be around his sister.

 

I still want to scream at my mom. I'll call and ask her about plans and stuff. She always says "I'll have to ask your father" She is 60 years old and has a daddy( husband.)

[Nestof3]

I understand what you are saying, but if a woman's husband were to act like that in each situation, how should she respond? Should she submit in all things? This is really what I am asking.

 

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!

 

Edited March 1, 2010 by nestof3

[Nestof3]

Just to clarify--the woman was *deceived.* The man saw what was going on & *willfully" sinned. I think it's easy to read this passage & forget about Adam's role in the Fall & come to the conclusion that we women should be quiet because we're more prone to being deceived & messing stuff up when that's not the case at all.

 

Yes, I am aware of Adam's fault. But, Paul uses a woman's tendency to be deceived to justify why she should not teach a man.

 

Here's another one:

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

Edited March 1, 2010 by nestof3

[6packofun]

Sounds like most good Christian marriages, complete with submission, that I know of. Huh. Seems like the word is the problem and the concept has been vilified to the extreme so that no one wants to even admit that at times they DO comply with another's wishes or let them have momentary control.

 

Of course, it's difficult to have this conversation with anyone who doesn't acknowledge or respect God as an authority in their lives in the first place because a Christian marriage is supposed to reflect Christ and His church so the thinking can be parallel in many ways but those lines will never meet. ;) That's not to say that a Christian marriage is "better" than a nonchristian one, just that it's comparing apples to oranges.

[Renee in NC]

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.

 

I'm not AngelBee and I am actually arguing the other side (I thought.) However, in the scenarios she posted I would make tacos if that is what he wanted if at all possible (or ask him to help me do it) and I would go with his judgment about sleeping over. I might let him know what I heard, but still leave it to him.

 

Neither of those things would bother me.

 

Maybe I am arguing the wrong side!:lol:

Edited March 1, 2010 by Renee in FL

[Aubrey]

Yes, I am aware of Adam's fault. But, Paul uses a woman's tendency to be deceived to justify why she should not teach a man.

 

Here's another one:

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

 

I know that's how we tend to read it, but I'm not sure that that would make sense. Because while I wouldn't nec want a teacher who's given to easy deception as a guide, neither would I want one who will willfully mislead.

 

Iow, I believe that putting men in leadership over women, exclusively, because of the Fall, would be illogical.

 

I know that God's ways are higher than man's ways, & so Scripture that doesn't make sense to me? I don't reject it; I pray about it, read about it, think about it, & in the meantime, I obey the ones I *do* understand while attempting to understand the ones I don't.

[Holly IN]

YEP YEP!!!! DH and I agree that Eph 5: 21 gets LOST when talking submission stuff. Dh is a preacher (fill in when needed only so not a full time preacher. He is a full time Sunday School teacher). He says this scripture gets ignored in the submission talks even on the pulpit. It aggravates him when this gets ignored.

 

Our relationship is the whole thing from Eph 5:21 to 33. We have mutual submission to each other and God is the head of our household. We each have gifts to the house. I make decisions with stuff that I am good at and he makes decisions with stuff he is good at. We discuss things and then whichever is the best at whatever it is we are discussing, makes the decision.

 

I make the decisions about dinner and stuff. Now out of respect and love for my hubby, I do ask if there are any request for meals. He will tell me "oh yeah, it would be great to have a pot roast one night this week". If I have the meat I will say ok we can have it on Wed. pm....if no meat then I say well I will see if the store has it and there is a sale. He is ok if we do not have it that week because he KNOWS that I shop sales. We love and respect each other very much that we ask each other stuff all the time. We make decisions together if it comes to that. One time we had to make a decision on something, it took us 3 weeks of discussions and I finally said to him that he needs to make the decision and be done with it. I got tired of talking about and wanted the decision made so we can move on. He did and we moved on. No biggie!!

 

We both submit to God first then to each other.

 

Another thing that bothers dh: A lot of preachers teach this and alot of women feel this way as well.... "women are to obey their husbands as unto the Lord....." Well this doesn't mean that if the Bible says something is wrong and the husband tells you to do it. That is NOT UNTO THE LORD!! Unto the Lord means that the dh can't tell you to do something that is against scripture.

 

One author's husband said in her book: If your dh tells you, you are not to go to church then don't go to church. It is better to obey dh"

.... well that is not unto the Lord. He is dishonoring scripture by telling the readers this. It is BETTER to obey God than to dh in this case. Obey dh only if it is not violating God's word/laws.

 

That is my dh's stance on submission. Both partners need to do this with God as their head.

 

ETA: The teacher comments: Now this is talking about corporate setting.... Not witnessing... Women can witness to men and talk to them about the Bible in a private setting or a group setting. Corporate setting is a BIG no no for women to be in the pulpit to teach.

 

Holly

 

 

 

I think that the rest of the passages on submission get so lost.

 

In Eph. 5 -

 

21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

 

[

 

It isn't a one-sided command. The man has just a much responsibility to love and care for his wife - not demean her into submission. We are one flesh - I am part of him, he is part of me. Together we have a relationship that should mirror Christ and the church.

[lionfamily1999]

I understand what you are saying, but if a woman's husband were to act like that in each situation, how should she respond? Should she submit in all things? This is really what I am asking.

Are those requests made with Christ in mind? Imo, both would sound "offensive" and I would see them as stumbling blocks. If dh was putting stumbling blocks in my way, then I have a responsibility as a fellow Christian to say so.

 

As for a hypothetical woman putting up with such nonsense as a meal changer after dinner's nearly done?!? It would be up to her. I would not be surprised if an intelligent, well-read, Christian woman would tell her husband that she'd just finished getting dinner ready and it was too late, but he could expect it the next day.

 

I think sometimes we get so hung up in arguing over the tinier details of certain things that we lose sight of the big picture.

[LizzyBee]

.........

 

I have a SIL with this type marriage. She was a fun lady to be around and the longer she is in those marriage the more quite and reserved she has become. She says she is being meek like the bible call her to be.

 

I can tell you I have only meet a few women who were meek (I say in the holy spirit gifted in meekness) they were lovely ladies verses her idea of meekness that just seem creepy. My DH can't even stand to be around his sister.

 

I still want to scream at my mom. I'll call and ask her about plans and stuff. She always says "I'll have to ask your father" She is 60 years old and has a daddy( husband.)

 

Meekness... That's another word that, in modern usage, doesn't mean what the Greek word did. The Greek word refers to controlled strength...not lack of strength. The Biblical meaning of meekness doesn't imply that we have to stop being strong women, just that we should use judgement regarding when to reign it in.

[LizzyBee]

This is my marriage as well. I really don't understand where it would ever be necessary for my husband to play the "headship" card.

 

I think you hit on an important point there. A Christian man who is truly trying to follow Paul's commands to husbands in Ephesians 5 will not play the headship card. That's what men on a power trip do. Eph 5, by contrast, tells men to love their wives sacrificially and with humility.

[tricia]

Submission, like anything else is different to each marriage. I practice submission fully to my husband. (at least I try very hard) Most of the time things come pretty easy but there are times I need to pray and fast for strength. Fortunately, I have a husband who does not demand it from me and respects me highly for my submitting myself to him. It has become a joy and blessing over the years in submitting to him. But I know some women where I KNOW I probably couldn't be in their marriage AND submit. Like anything else, some things come easy and other things difficult. But most things always take prayer.

[Melinda in VT]

Submission, like anything else is different to each marriage. I practice submission fully to my husband. (at least I try very hard) Most of the time things come pretty easy but there are times I need to pray and fast for strength. Fortunately, I have a husband who does not demand it from me and respects me highly for my submitting myself to him. It has become a joy and blessing over the years in submitting to him. But I know some women where I KNOW I probably couldn't be in their marriage AND submit. Like anything else, some things come easy and other things difficult. But most things always take prayer.

 

Does this mean that every time you and your husband disagree on something, you go with what he wants? Apologies if I am being too nosy, I'm sincerely trying to understand how this plays out in real marriages, and I do better with specifics.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have some issues with the whole "women in the church" passages - as in I wrestle with what they mean and have many questions regarding them. That said, in real life, things have always worked out ok for me in that regard.

 

One thing for me is that it honestly helps me, when I have questions about what was said from the pulpit or decisions made by the leadership, to go talk it over with my husband. Many times he helps me to see things more objectively, although he usually does agree with me on the basics. There are times after I've talked things over with my husband (as is scriptural) that he has encouraged me to then go and ask the elders questions or to make my opinion known. I do that knowing that I am still submitting to my husband's authority while I do so. Sometimes he has gone himself - esp. when I've gone and have been treated rudely or without respect. He has made it abundantly clear to others that we are a team and that I am not going behind his back.

[Parrothead]

Of course, it's difficult to have this conversation with anyone who doesn't acknowledge or respect God as an authority in their lives in the first place because a Christian marriage is supposed to reflect Christ and His church so the thinking can be parallel in many ways but those lines will never meet. ;) That's not to say that a Christian marriage is "better" than a nonchristian one, just that it's comparing apples to oranges.

Not all Christian marriages follow the quoted verses literally. You may say that makes these marriages not Christian, but at the same time the people in the marriages could say the same of you.

 

This topic really can be discussed with like minded people. I'll be willing to bet that even among those that practice submission there are varying degrees of it.

[LizzyBee]

I have some issues with the whole "women in the church" passages - as in I wrestle with what they mean and have many questions regarding them. That said, in real life, things have always worked out ok for me in that regard.

 

One thing for me is that it honestly helps me, when I have questions about what was said from the pulpit or decisions made by the leadership, to go talk it over with my husband. Many times he helps me to see things more objectively, although he usually does agree with me on the basics. There are times after I've talked things over with my husband (as is scriptural) that he has encouraged me to then go and ask the elders questions or to make my opinion known. I do that knowing that I am still submitting to my husband's authority while I do so. Sometimes he has gone himself - esp. when I've gone and have been treated rudely or without respect. He has made it abundantly clear to others that we are a team and that I am not going behind his back.

 

I don't know if you're a "fan" of Anne Graham Lotz, but she is my role model on this issue. She knows what God has called her to do, and she just does it. She refuses to get sucked into a public argument about ordination of women or women's roles at home and in the church. She speaks with grace and a smile while refusing to argue. I have a lot of respect for her because of the way she handles herself when questioned about these issues.

[kmacnchs]

Does this mean that every time you and your husband disagree on something, you go with what he wants? Apologies if I am being too nosy, I'm sincerely trying to understand how this plays out in real marriages, and I do better with specifics.

 

I'm not Tricia but in my 4yr marriage (I'm a baby, I know, but we courted for 6yrs B4 that), yes. However, I knew what I was getting into and I know my dh would never ask me to do something against God's Word, against the law, etc. but there are many times that I do not agree with him but submit to him anyway (with MUCH prayer) and it has made me (and us) happier. We were raised VERY differently so many times have come up ($$$, cleanliness of the house, children, discipline, etc.) already.

[kmacnchs]

Not all Christian marriages follow the quoted verses literally. You may say that makes these marriages not Christian, but at the same time the people in the marriages could say the same of you.

 

This topic really can be discussed with like minded people. I'll be willing to bet that even among those that practice submission there are varying degrees of it.

 

A marriage where the wife does not submit to her hubby and a hubby who does not love his wife (as Christ loves the church) -- I guess you could call it a Christian marriage (if both are Christians) but I certainly wouldn't call it a biblical marriage and I would definitely say that they are not submitting to God's Will of what He desires a marriage to look like. I agree - apples & oranges.

 

I agree w/your last point though - I'm sure there are varying degrees of submission but if the spouses are striving towards God's Will for their marriage (as set up in His Word), that is only b/c they are at different points in their walk (maturity) but they are all striving towards the same goal (full submission - wife; sacrificial love - hubby)...commence to throwing tomatoes:001_huh:

[asta]

A marriage where the wife does not submit to her hubby and a hubby who does not love his wife (as Christ loves the church) -- I guess you could call it a Christian marriage (if both are Christians) but I certainly wouldn't call it a biblical marriage and I would definitely say that they are not submitting to God's Will of what He desires a marriage to look like. I agree - apples & oranges.

 

I agree w/your last point though - I'm sure there are varying degrees of submission but if the spouses are striving towards God's Will for their marriage (as set up in His Word), that is only b/c they are at different points in their walk (maturity) but they are all striving towards the same goal (full submission - wife; sacrificial love - hubby)...commence to throwing tomatoes:001_huh:

 

I'm starting to understand why so many people don't think Catholics are Christians.

 

This entire concept simply doesn't exist in Catholicism.

 

 

a

[kmacnchs]

I'm starting to understand why so many people don't think Catholics are Christians.

 

This entire concept simply doesn't exist in Catholicism.

 

 

a

 

how does it not exist? Do you not know any Catholic women who believe they should submit to their dh? I know this part of scripture isn't just omitted from the Catholic Bible so how does it not exist?

[Diane in CO]

I'm starting to understand why so many people don't think Catholics are Christians.

 

This entire concept simply doesn't exist in Catholicism.

 

 

a

 

Yes, it makes me glad to be Catholic ;)

[MelanieM]

I'm starting to understand why so many people don't think Catholics are Christians.

 

This entire concept simply doesn't exist in Catholicism.

 

 

a

 

I grew up Anglican and I never heard of it as a child either.

[LizzyBee]

I'm starting to understand why so many people don't think Catholics are Christians.

 

This entire concept simply doesn't exist in Catholicism.

 

 

a

 

You know, I grew up Lutheran, and I can't recall wifely submission ever being discussed or preached in the Lutheran church.

 

ETA: I just remembered that the wedding vows include the word obey. The synod I grew up in is very conservative, so promising to obey is not optional.

Edited March 1, 2010 by LizzyBee

[Parrothead]

I'm starting to understand why so many people don't think Catholics are Christians.

 

This entire concept simply doesn't exist in Catholicism.

 

 

a

Yes, it exists. Maybe not to the "extreme" that the fundamentalist Christians look at it. Submission of the wife to the head of the household is not written into Catholic marriage vows the way it is in some Protestant denominations. But the same questions that exist both from Catholics and Protestants.

 

If you go to the Catholic Answers forum and search for Wifely Submission you'll find quite a few threads that discuss it. I'd post a link, but I do not know if the board rules allow it.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Parrothead

[HRAAB]

I'm starting to understand why so many people don't think Catholics are Christians.

 

This entire concept simply doesn't exist in Catholicism.

 

 

a

 

I would have agreed with you before I started homeschooling. The first time I ever heard about 'wifely submission' was in a Catholic homeschooling group. It was a big topic among most of the women of that group. It was also in this Catholic homeschooling group that I first heard of the Pearls and the Ezzos. This is the group where I was asked if I had my dh's permission to go on an out of town field trip. This is the group where we were advised to never go against our dh's wishes in anything; that by submitting in all to our husbands we were, in effect, submitting to God.

 

Indeed, there's a Catholic homeschooling message board and several Catholic e-mail groups where this is discussed.

 

It still boggles my mind.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Ishki
typo

[Georgiana Daniels]

I haven't read all the comments yet, but I everyone's answers fascinating!

 

In our marriage, I *try* to be submissive, but it's totally not in a doormat kind of way. Remember, the next passage says for husbands to love their wives as Christ love the Church and gave up His life for her.

 

Wow, when dh loves me enough to lay down his life, I have no problem submitting. Also, hubbies are a protection of sort. If I am "underneath" him, he's the one taking the biggest spiritual blows while I live the good life. Of course, in a practical sense I am there to pray, support, and be a helper.

 

Most everything is mutual in our relationship, and no one lords anything over the other. Mostly, I view submission as respecting my hubby and the position God has given him within marriage.

[cathmom]

Here's a quote from the book A Mother's Rule of Life by Holly Pierlot:

 

"Early on in our marriage, I tended to submit to his decisions because I felt that this was called for in a wife. I'd tell Philip exactly what I thought about it, and then I'd leave the decision up to him. After all, he was the head of the home, and decision-maker was his role as the man of the family, wasn't it?

Philip never agreed with me on this particular idea of "headship." To him, it evoked images of a timid, subservient wife, and a husband who became almost necessarily a semi-tyrant.

He felt that our relationship wasn't healthy if I deferred to his decision-making as a rule, instead of working together with him to come to an agreement. For if it was a rule of thumb, he felt it didn't reflect the reality of our relationship and that it was unnatural. But also, he thought it provided me with an excuse not to become involved, and it presented him with the danger of not really discussing anyuthing; he could just act. There was the temptation to become a petty dictator.

But I had read a lot of books, Catholic and Protestant, about family authority, and I was sure this was what Christian teaching was. So after I told him what I thought, I'd abandon him to let him figure it all out for himself. I must admit that sometimes it seemed such a futile process - telling him what I thought and then watching him turn around and do the opposite. At times, I found it very difficult to "submit" to his decisions - regardless of whether I thought they were made with clear and sound judgment - just because he was the man. But I was submissive to his authority. If it did cause a little anger and resentment to build up within me, I thought I must be wrong to feel that way.

But one day the resentment became so great that I pulled out my Catechism [The Catechism of the Catholic Church]. "Okay, let's see where it says I have to submit to his authority!" Well, I couldn't find anything there. The closest thing I could find were sections on authority in general, and these clearly leaned the other way: suggesting that for every authority, there needed to be a "counter-authority" to temper or safeguard against abuse.

I pulled Pope John Paul's On the Dignity and Vocation of Women off the shelf, and there I read something that made my mind reel: that there could be no true communion if there wasn't true equality; that it was not a matter of man being superior and woman inferior; that marriage called for mutual submission.

...

Marriage is not about rigid role definitions or about a hierarchy of decision-making responsibilities. It's not about having power over each other as spouses. We've seen that the married relationship as God intended is more about becoming one in mind and heart, about the gift of self and being a servant of the other. Authority in marriage is more about leading and helping by example and word, of protecting the one you love, of providing direction and supporting one's spouse and sacrificing self to bring about his or her good. In a word, it's all about love.

And so, yes, Philip and I were both called to mutual submission based on mutual love. The core issue for both of us was whether to relinquish or retain our ability to grab at our own desires and preferences over the rights, needs, and interests of the other. I knew that in all things, I was to seek to love him, to give myself to him, to be like Jesus, who emptied himself.

I also realized that I wasn't just to tell Philip my thoughts and leave him to make the decisions. I was to work them out with him. For me, this was a call to maturity, to assume mutual responsibility for the direction of our marriage, and not to make Philip a handy scapegoat should things not turn out.

I discovered that our previous way of handling things had prevented full unity. When a woman doesn't feel as if her opinion counts, it's hard to feel as if she counts as person. Only by acknowledging my full equality, my full human dignity, and my full responsibility within the marriage did I feel a diminishment of resentment in my heart toward Philip and experience a new openness to him."

 

[kmacnchs]

In our marriage, I *try* to be submissive, but it's totally not in a doormat kind of way. Remember, the next passage says for husbands to love their wives as Christ love the Church and gave up His life for her.

 

Wow, when dh loves me enough to lay down his life, I have no problem submitting. Also, hubbies are a protection of sort. If I am "underneath" him, he's the one taking the biggest spiritual blows while I live the good life. Of course, in a practical sense I am there to pray, support, and be a helper.

 

Most everything is mutual in our relationship, and no one lords anything over the other. Mostly, I view submission as respecting my hubby and the position God has given him within marriage.

 

This is VERY well put! :iagree:wholeheartedly :D

[AngelBee]

Yes, it makes me glad to be Catholic ;)

 

We I was Catholic and that is where I first heard of it :) So there ARE Catholic submissive wives.

[AngelBee]

Yes, it exists. Maybe not to the "extreme" that the fundamentalist Christians look at it. Submission of the wife to the head of the household is not written into Catholic marriage vows the way it is in some Protestant denominations. But the same questions that exist both from Catholics and Protestants.

 

If you go to the Catholic Answers forum and search for Wifely Submission you'll find quite a few threads that discuss it. I'd post a link, but I do not know if the board rules allow it.

 

It was in my Catholic marriage vows. I will try to find mine.

[8circles]

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.

 

OK, I am a conservative Christian & consider my marriage a Biblical one.

 

If I were making meatloaf & my husband came home & wanted tacos instead - he'd probably say "Oh, I was really hoping for tacos. How about we have those tomorrow night. {pause} I really love your meatloaf." Depending on how easily it could be done I'd consider changing & doing tacos that night instead of meatloaf. Otherwise I'd make it the next night. Honestly this is just a basic issue of respect, no?

 

Sleepover example, DH would look at me before responding to the question, see my look of unease & say to the child "I'm not sure. We can talk about it, OK?" Then we'd discuss it in private.

 

Honestly, I can't imagine being married to someone who behaves in the way of your examples. It seems so bizzarre.

Edited March 1, 2010 by momoflaw

[justamouse]

 

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.

 

Nuther second waver here! (and yes, I'm a Christian but I think Jesus was a feminist, too)

 

But, no, empowered women got shoved down in the reign of patriarchy in the last 6000 years. But Before that? God was seen as feminine and all things were birthed through her. More of an aboriginal Spirit without Old (White) Dude = God. Thankfully awareness is coming back and people are realizing patriarchy is out of balance.

 

If I was submissive my husband would tell me to grow up. And although I've said this before, I'll say it again. That submit is actually not in the new testament in the Greek. It just says wives unto your husbands. The translators put it in there.

Edited March 1, 2010 by justamouse

[Crimson Wife]

It was in my Catholic marriage vows. I will try to find mine.

 

I'm pretty sure I vowed to love, honor, and obey my DH as well.

[HRAAB]

I'm pretty sure I vowed to love, honor, and obey my DH as well.

 

I was married in 1985 at a Nuptial Mass and the word obey was not part of our vows.

[Diane in CO]

I'm pretty sure I vowed to love, honor, and obey my DH as well.

 

 

Ours was Love, honor and cherish....don't think I could have doen the Love honor and obey. The priest that married us was my 2nd cousin...so maybe he took the "obey" out as part of family solidarity :D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Nuther second waver here! (and yes, I'm a Christian but I think Jesus was a feminist, too)

 

But, no, empowered women got shoved down in the reign of patriarchy in the last 6000 years. But Before that? God was seen as feminine and all things were birthed through her. More of an aboriginal Spirit without Old (White) Dude = God. Thankfully awareness is coming back and people are realizing patriarchy is out of balance.

 

If I was submissive my husband would tell me to grow up. And although I've said this before, I'll say it again. That submit is actually not in the new testament in the Greek. It just says wives unto your husbands. The translators put it in there.

 

:iagree: I have always had feminist ideas. To me "feminism" is not a bad word. I see feminism as a part of human rights. I have never envisioned the idea of man hating either which I find abhorrent. I believe God created both men and women as equals. Of course, men are from Mars and women are from Venus in many respects. OTOH, I truly believe that there are also many similarities and both have equal dignity and worth IMHO. I also believe that any society that does not treat women well, probably does not treat men (or at least certain groups of men) well either.

 

For example, look at the Taliban type culture. From what I understand, they often take little boys from their mothers and indoctrinate them into this harsh way of thinking about women and other things. Then, on top of it all, they really do not treat men well at all IMHO as well. I can only imagheine that many of those men are terrified of the Taliban leaders:(

Edited March 1, 2010 by priscilla

[justamouse]

More please.

 

I've heard this before (maybe it was here--from you, LOL) and I'd love to explore the concept further. Would you please provide some additional information on this? Or just some links or suggested book titles?

 

Thanks.

 

I'll be thrilled to! And tell me if you get them-we can discuss. :001_smile:

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Ephesians-5:22-Does-Not-Command-Wives-To-Submit-To-Their-Husbands&id=910993

 

It's an article by Dr Kalinda Rose Stevenson PhD.

 

Every English translation I have ever seen translates Ephesians 5:22 as a complete sentence, with an imperative verb addressed to women. Here are a few samples:

 

"Wives, submit yourself to your own husbands as unto the Lord" (King James Version.)

"Wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord" (Modern Language Version.)

"You wives must submit to your husbands' leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord" (Living Bible.)

"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord" (Revised Standard Version.)

"Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord" (New Revised Standard Version.)

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord"(New International Version.)

This is clear enough, isn't it? Whether it is "submit" or "be subject," in English translations, Ephesians 5:22 is a separate sentence with an imperative verb. Many English Bibles also treat Ephesians 5:22 as the start of a new paragraph.

 

And this is exactly the problem. Ephesians was not written in English. Ephesians was written in Greek, sometime in the first century. When you consult the Greek version of Ephesians, you will notice something remarkable. (If you wish to see the Greek version in an interlinear form with English translations, follow the link to Ephesians 5 below.)

 

Verse 5:22, in its entirety reads: "Wives to their own husbands as to the Lord."

 

This isn't even a complete sentence, because there is no verb. So, where does the idea of submission come from? It comes from the verb of the previous verse, Ephesians 5:21. In 5:21, the verb is not an imperative addressed only to wives. Instead, it is what Greek grammar calls a "reflexive" verb, in which submission is "to one another other." Here are some translations of 5:21.

 

The more I ponder on the Greek, the more I come to think that Paul meant for a wife to ...look to her husband concerning their family/business/whathave you. Meaning, I wouldn't go to my best friend's husband on how I should direct my doings. I think Paul was just trying to keep things within the marriage unit, not telling wives they had to submit. (which, apparently he wasn't cause it's not there) Definitely read the whole article, though.

 

Books-

 

Dance of the Dissident Daughter by Sue Monk Kidd (She wrote The Secret Life of Bees)

 

http://www.amazon.com/Dance-Dissident-Daughter-Christian-Tradition/dp/0061144908/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267489301&sr=8-1-spell

 

From The Dance of the Dissident Daughter:

It was autumn, and everything was turning loose....For the previous couple of years I had been in the midst of a tumultuous awakening. I had been struggling to come to terms with my life as a woman -- in my culture, my marriage, my faith, my church, and deep inside myself. It was a process not unlike the experience of conception and labor....It had been extraordinary and surprising to find myself -- a conventionally religious woman in my late thirties -- suddenly struck pregnant with a new consciousness, with an unfolding new awareness of what it means to be a woman and what it means to be spiritual as a woman....Still, the initial idea of telling my story in this book gave me pause. The hardest thing about writing is telling the truth. Maybe it's the hardest thing about being a woman, too. I think of Nisa, the old African woman who was telling story....She said, "I will tell my talkd...But don't let the people I live with hear what I have to say...." I know that feeling. But in the end, Nisa and I, we told our truth anyway.

The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Insanity-Human-History-Dawning/dp/1905047207/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267489403&sr=1-1

 

From the back cover:

 

The Fall is a major work that overturns mainstream current thinking on the nature of civilization and human nature. It draws on the increasing evidence accumulated over recent decades that prehistoric humanity was peaceful and egalitarian, rather than war-like and crude. It is not "natural" for human beings to kill each other, for men to oppress women, for individuals to accumulate massive wealth and power, or to abuse nature. The worldwide myths of a Golden Age or an original paradise have a factual, archaeological basis.

 

The Fall pinpoints the transition to around 4000 BCE, when dramatic changes in the climate in central Asia and the Middle East made survival more difficult. These produced a sharpened sense of individuality among the area’s inhabitants, which led to warfare, patriarchy, social inequality and theistic religion. The author calls this the "ego explosion." He makes the case that rather than showing a continual progression (as some historians would like to believe), in many ways human history is marked by a degeneration. He shows how, even in the modern world, our over-developed sense of ego gives rise to warfare, male domination and other problems, and suggests what we can do to transcend it.

 

Finally the author points to signs that we are entering a new historical phase, where more egalitarian relationships between men and women, a healthier regard for the human body and for nature provide some hope for the future. But whether the human race survives or not may depend on whether we can transcend the sharpened sense of ego which has caused the last 6000 years of social insanity.

Edited March 2, 2010 by justamouse

[Guest blueeyeddevil]

Allow me to give a guy's point of view (this is my wife's username--I don't have one.) Submission simply means that there is symbiosis in a marriage where the male acts as the leader or the alpha. It's yin and yang, hard and soft, etc... The Christian ideal places the male in the role of leader and the wife as the follower. However this isn't always true in real life. There are fully functioning relationships where the female has the "dominant energy" ie--SHE wears the pants. She is the one who takes charge and makes decisions. In this case it's usually the male that submits.

 

You ladies are placing the most pejorative meaning to "submissive" and it is understandably offensive. Any man who expects his wife to demean herself, or do anything she doesn't want to do is not at all dominant--he's just an idiot. Courtship is supposed to weed these types of people out. Submission, to me, is an unspoken understanding between my wife and myself that I will be the man in the relationship--I'll be the person that she can trust to care for her and our children.

 

As far as how feminism relates to this--I feel that most people miss the idea of what equality truly means and it tends to lead to confusion. Equality does NOT mean sameness. As a woman, do you really want to be judged by the same standards as a man on everything? The last 50 years has led to confusion about gender roles, which I'm sure is the reason discussions like this come about. I completely treat my wife as an equal, however I wouldn't expect her to carry the bags of dog food into the house, nor do I expect her to teach my son to shave or how to hunt and fish. Equality doesn't eliminate gender roles--society sets the parameters about what's extreme vs what's normal. Compare our society's norm with Iran's.

 

I hope nobody gets offended by my post. Ultimately it comes down to finding that one single person with whom you share an unbreakable connection.

[Melinda in VT]

OK, I am a conservative Christian & consider my marriage a Biblical one.

 

If I were making meatloaf & my husband came home & wanted tacos instead - he'd probably say "Oh, I was really hoping for tacos. How about we have those tomorrow night. {pause} I really love your meatloaf." Depending on how easily it could be done I'd consider changing & doing tacos that night instead of meatloaf. Otherwise I'd make it the next night. Honestly this is just a basic issue of respect, no?

 

Sleepover example, DH would look at me before responding to the question, see my look of unease & say to the child "I'm not sure. We can talk about it, OK?" Then we'd discuss it in private.

 

Honestly, I can't imagine being married to someone who behaves in the way of your examples. It seems so bizzarre.

 

This seems a lot like how these scenarios would play out in my marriage. (Well, if I did the cooking.) But they don't seem to be examples of wife-only submission. Do they seem that way to you?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Ours was Love, honor and cherish....don't think I could have doen the Love honor and obey. The priest that married us was my 2nd cousin...so maybe he took the "obey" out as part of family solidarity :D

Mine was love, honor and deeply respect. I think DH said love, honor and cherish.

[8circles]

This seems a lot like how these scenarios would play out in my marriage. (Well, if I did the cooking.) But they don't seem to be examples of wife-only submission. Do they seem that way to you?

 

Well, I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. I don't see it as me not being submissive, I just don't see where submission is required anywhere in these situations. I would turn the question around to - Was my behavior as the wife not Biblical?

[Mrs Mungo]

Dawn,

 

I'm just going to answer your original post because there is a lot going on here and I don't have time at the moment to read through the whole thing.

 

If you and your husband are happy with the way your relationship works, aren't you already submitting to his will? My husband is very happy with his intelligent, strong-willed, independent wife. If he wanted a meek little wife who consulted him on every issue, then he would have married one. Couldn't you say the same about your own husband? Your version of submission doesn't have to look like someone else's.

[Melinda in VT]

Well, I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. I don't see it as me not being submissive, I just don't see where submission is required anywhere in these situations. I would turn the question around to - Was my behavior as the wife not Biblical?

 

It depends on whose interpretation of the Bible we use. ;)

 

I don't have any issue with the behavior you described. I don't believe God would have any issue with it.

 

I'm just still wrestling with how submission looks in marriages in this day and age, among people who believe in submission in marriage, and to me your post didn't seem to be an example of that. I was just wondering if you felt it was an example of submission and if so if you could help me understand how it was.

 

Did I muddle that up more or clarify?

[myfatherslily]

I am familiar with a marriage (not my own) in which the husband uses the concept of submission to dominate and control, believing that he IS loving his wife, yet I know no one else who would consider his behavior to be love. He wants things his way, period.

In the two example scenarios mentioned previously, he would

1) Not eat the food if he didn't want it. But, the truth is, the only meals he eats which his wife has prepared are the lunches she makes for him, which need to be the food he specifies for the day.

2) If he agreed with her concerns, then great. If he didn't agree that they mattered, then her concerns would be irrelevant.

One must obey the rules of the home or pay the consequences.

 

This is NOT an example of a Biblical marriage. This is an example of utter pride and selfishness wrapped up in pretty packaging.

 

So, to the original question of why men would WANT submission, there could be a few reasons. Some have learned this model of marriage and since the Bible is their authority, they follow what they believe to be correct. Others will use any excuse to never be wrong.

 

I've had many thoughts as I've followed this thread since it's beginning. I am a Christian. I believe the Bible to be true. But I'm seeing my viewpoint change as to what the "model marriage" really is, especially in light of the utter failure of my own. I've truly enjoyed the exchange of ideas on this thread, from all perspectives.

[Nestof3]

Thank you everyone for your replies so far.

 

I have read many books that really boil down to a woman submitting to everything, and the examples given are similar to the ones I have given. I also have a lot of experience with churches who teach total submission. They also teach total love on a man's part, but a wife is to submit in all things even if the husband is not responding in love. She will win him over by her submissive behavior.

 

Here is one example of the headship I have witnessed in these situations.

 

Last year, I needed a cardiac ablation for SVTs (rapid heartrate). I was a little worried b/c there was a slim chance that a heart attack or stroke could result. Very slim, but I was nervous nonetheless.

 

I spoke to our elder's wife before hand, and she asked me how my husband felt about it. I told her he felt confident (he wouldn't tell me if he was scared b/c that would scare me anyway). She then said she looks to her husband as the head for medical decisions. He has a direct line to God. She will present her medical concerns to him, and he will tell her if she needs to see a doctor. So, if my husband felt confident, I should rest in the fact that God will lead my husband.

 

Do you see why I am asking these questions?

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/In%20Search%20of%20Paul.htm A critical historical analysis of Paul leads to the opposite conclusions regarding gender and patriarchy in the minds of some scholars and some Christians. This is not an attempt to persuade anyone here toward a different pov but rather to give a voice to the pov of many people who call themselves Christians but do not read the Bible literally without reference to its time, place and authors . It is not my intent to derail the thread or in any manner detract from the immediate discussion but merely to give a response consistent with my understanding and beliefs.