I will admit that I have never submitted to my husband...

[lovelaughs_times_three]

I'm really glad that it resonated with you. :)

 

Ooops! I just now saw that I spelled your name wrong! I edited my original post! Sorry about that, Rebekah! My daughter is named Rebecca! And I have a son - Jackson! I like your names! :)

[Nakia]

Do you believe the husband is the head of the household and will be held responsible for how the members of the household live?

 

First let me say that my husband is the calm to my storm. He is very easy going, and I am very spirited. :) I believe my husband and I are joint heads of our household, and he believes the same. My husband is not in charge of me, and I am not in charge of him. We believe we were united by God and we are to honor and respect each other without bitterness, force, control, etc. We make decisions together like I described in my op. Now, there are some things he feels really strongly about, like the science situation I described. I don't feel exactly the same about it, but I value his opinion, and I chose a Christian based science curriculum for our girls because it's not a big deal to me. There are things that I feel very strongly about and he listens to me and honors my feelings even if he doesn't agree with me. He has NEVER gone against something I've asked him to do or not to do. NEVER. And he has NEVER made a decision that he knew I disagreed with. And vice versa. It just doesn't happen here. Like I said, there's no power struggle. It's just the way we work.

 

Now, as far as being held responsible for how the members of our household live....I believe we are each responsible for how we live. I am responsible for me; he is responsible for him. I am not his mom; he is not my dad. We don't keep secrets, and we don't check up on each other. No need. As far as our children go, we have been given the responsibility to "train them up in the way that they should go", and we make that our goal. God is the center and core of our home. We are both responsible for how the girls live, to an extent, while they are in our home, and when they leave, then it's on them. We will know that we have done our best.

 

I have no idea if that's what you were asking, lol. I am getting sleepy, so I hope I explained it in a way that makes sense.

 

Let me again say that our marriage is far from perfect! We bicker, I have major breakdowns sometimes, he "takes a break" and goes fishing when he gets irritated, etc. And this is just how our marriage works. I mean no disrespect to other marriages if they operate differently.

 

Congrats on the new baby, btw!

Edited July 9, 2011 by Nakia

[dakarimom5]

I actually have been thinking about this a lot lately. I do not submit to my DH, he might fall over if I did. Only once in our 10 year marriage has he "put his foot down" and that had to do with his brother trying to take advantage of me (babysitting his children).

 

We talk and then go from there. If it deals with the crew he wants me to show him things to back up my opinion. Then he does his own research and decides I'm right;)

 

When I started homeschooling he was against it and was very vocal about it. When I finally came out and said that I COULD NOT fight the school system anymore he relented. When I decided to pull our sons from the magnet school he wasn't happy but then he started to see the gaps and now understands.

 

To me marriage is a partnership but the home is my job and his job is to go to work. I don't tell him where and when to go to work and he shouldn't tell me how to run our house or take care of our children...as long as I am doing my job;)

[tntgoodwin]

Thanks Nakia.

 

I only ask because we are currently discussing this section in 1st Peter 3 in our Bible Study group.

 

Personally, I am a complementarian in this area, not egalitarian.

[tomandlorih]

What you describe is how Biblical submission should work, imo. It's all about considering the best interest each other rather than making selfish decisions. Considering that husbands are told in Ephesians to love their wives as Christ loved the church, I don't think there's anything biblical about a man bossing his wife around and expecting her to be at his beck and call. Fortunately, I don't see that kind of marriage often.

 

:iagree:

[YLVD]

I can't imagine being in a submissive marriage. To me that isn't a marriage, that is a parent/child relationship.

 

We are a TEAM and he respects me enough to ask my opinion and I do the same for him.

 

There is a lot more I could say but I really don't want to get too judgmental.

 

Dawn

 

:iagree:

[YLVD]

To me, this is how submission is supposed to work. Each person is treated with respect, and gets to share what they think, and then a decision is reached. Submission does not mean the husband gets to dictate everything.

 

My dh and I were just talking about this. The only time I can see submission maybe being an issue is when we would have to agree to disagree, and his word would be the last one, because he *is* the head of the household. Rarely, he has told me "no" when I thought I REALLYREALLYREALLY wanted something, and in retrospect, he was right, or at least it's no longer a big deal. Most of the time, decisions are made based on the person with the most/best information. For example, I do not have much input on our investments. I have no interest in that kind of thing and really don't want to be involved. Dh is really good at it and has a good relationship with our financial advisor (if it were up to me, we wouldn't even have one). Dh does not have much to say about the curriculum I choose, except when I ask him to help me figure out where to go next. If he were to come home one day and start dictating that kind of thing, I would be certain that aliens had possessed him.

 

I really have to go to bed! I should not be reading and participating in these threads.

 

I have no issue with much of what you have said here as we tend to make decisions based on the person with the most invested in the decision.

 

My problem with it is that the DH gets the final say. In my household, we each get the final say depending on the issue. IMO, that is a healthy relationship.

[Frontier Mom]

I do very much agree that Christ never intended for women to be forced to submit to their husband the way many are taught today. FTR, my pastor has never mentioned submission in the 2 years we've been going there. If he did, and he condoned and promoted the dynamic I see in many marriages, we wouldn't be members there. ;)

 

My dh is a pastor and I can assure you he will not be preaching on this subject;)

 

I think marriage should be in the context of:

Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous;

love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly;

it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails...But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

1 Corinthians 13:4-7,13

 

To love like this means no one person even feels the need to ask another to submit. This is the model for marriage, family and life.

[Parrothead]

Do you believe the husband is the head of the household and will be held responsible for how the members of the household live?

Held responsible to whom?

[ma23peas]

I think the meaning of 'submissive' has a different connotation in our society today, some look at it like a king's subjects should 'submit' to his authority...

Hupotasso comes from two Greek words, the word hupo, which means: "under," and tasso, which means: "to set in place." In other words, the word means to set something in place up under something else...

Hupotasso is the Greek word for submit....

 

So, in this light, when I married my husband I was looking for a protector a provider and a partner..(I need to also add that I was the breadwinner for the first 5 years of our marriage, that does not mean I did not submit, he was finishing his education and we supported each other..I'm all about helping it happen...roles are not firm in stone and many can be supportive)..I was placed 'under' his authority because he has taken on the role of providing and caring for us...it's only when you are placed 'under' someone that is not loving and does not have the best interests for his 'subjects' in place that it becomes oppressive and the words take on a whole new meaning.

 

But, the gift of having a husband who willfully takes on that responsibility to love and care for those 'under' him is a beautiful thing! Granted, I make almost 100% of our schooling decisions because he trusts my leadership in this area...even with our finances, I do all the buying/choosing/management...but because I do these things does not mean I am not submissive to him...I honor him as the head of our household and he is our provider/leader..just because he has not problem with me leading many portions of it does not mean he is not ultimately leading...many kingdoms were not ruled by the king but his trustworthy aides/assistants....but they were still subject to him...I feel honored to be in this role and blessed to have a husband who cares so deeply for our family.

[....]

Do you believe the husband is the head of the household and will be held responsible for how the members of the household live?

 

I know you're not talking about yourself...but, I had no idea people still lived like that in this country until recently.

 

:confused:

 

On a side note...I have a minor in Germanic Studies. We read lots of European lit from the 1800s and before. One of the big themes in some of these stories was marriage/how women were viewed in the household/women as property, etc. There were lots of suicides. God gave us these gigantic brains for a reason. We're not supposed to be kids for 70 years. And, I don't buy the argument that "submit" means "work as a team". It just doesn't in my mind.

[LizzyBee]

I wouldn't think submission implies servitude, but if this is an example of biblical submission, it's an oxymoron. There's no submission in this example that I can see. What am I missing?

 

Since the Bible was written in Greek, we have to go back to what the Greek words mean. Hupotasso is voluntary, not mandatory. If my dh beats or guilts me into "submission," it's not Biblical submission. On the husbands' side, they are told to serve their wives and lay their lives down for them. If both spouses are seeking to serve rather than having their whims fulfilled, they will have those discussions about what's best for the family. They will put one another's interests ahead of their own. That's Biblical submission at it's best, and I firmly believe that's not re-writing what the Bible says. IMO, the English word for submit carries entirely different connotations than what the Bible teaches about marriage.

 

I once heard a woman say that her dh asked her opinion about something and she refused to give it, because he had to make the decision and she was staying out of it. I found that quite disturbing. Even if dh is the head of the household, wives are not supposed to lose their voice and personhood. Maybe it's because I'm a business major, but I think of it as a CEO/vice-president relationship. If the CEO of a corporation asks the VP for an opinion about something, the VP needs to get busy writing a memo or making a presentation. If the VP says he has no opinion and wants to leave the decision solely to the CEO, the VP is going to be fired.

[Veritaserum]

Since the Bible was written in Greek, we have to go back to what the Greek words mean. Hupotasso is voluntary, not mandatory. If my dh beats or guilts me into "submission," it's not Biblical submission. On the husbands' side, they are told to serve their wives and lay their lives down for them. If both spouses are seeking to serve rather than having their whims fulfilled, they will have those discussions about what's best for the family. They will put one another's interests ahead of their own. That's Biblical submission at it's best, and I firmly believe that's not re-writing what the Bible says. IMO, the English word for submit carries entirely different connotations than what the Bible teaches about marriage.

 

I once heard a woman say that her dh asked her opinion about something and she refused to give it, because he had to make the decision and she was staying out of it. I found that quite disturbing. Even if dh is the head of the household, wives are not supposed to lose their voice and personhood. Maybe it's because I'm a business major, but I think of it as a CEO/vice-president relationship. If the CEO of a corporation asks the VP for an opinion about something, the VP needs to get busy writing a memo or making a presentation. If the VP says he has no opinion and wants to leave the decision solely to the CEO, the VP is going to be fired.

 

But CEO/VP sets up an unequal power dynamic that I find unacceptable for two adults in a marriage partnership. And I really don't equate "submission" (voluntary or otherwise) with "serving and laying down one's life." Reciprocal, voluntary service between husband and wife is wonderful and would be part of an ideal marriage. Submission, no matter how you spin it, makes the partners unequal and therefore is not a healthy dynamic--especially when who submits to whom is determined by gender.

[Nakia]

I think the meaning of 'submissive' has a different connotation in our society today, some look at it like a king's subjects should 'submit' to his authority...

Hupotasso comes from two Greek words, the word hupo, which means: "under," and tasso, which means: "to set in place." In other words, the word means to set something in place up under something else...

Hupotasso is the Greek word for submit....

 

So, in this light, when I married my husband I was looking for a protector a provider and a partner..(I need to also add that I was the breadwinner for the first 5 years of our marriage, that does not mean I did not submit, he was finishing his education and we supported each other..I'm all about helping it happen...roles are not firm in stone and many can be supportive)..I was placed 'under' his authority because he has taken on the role of providing and caring for us...it's only when you are placed 'under' someone that is not loving and does not have the best interests for his 'subjects' in place that it becomes oppressive and the words take on a whole new meaning.

 

But, the gift of having a husband who willfully takes on that responsibility to love and care for those 'under' him is a beautiful thing! Granted, I make almost 100% of our schooling decisions because he trusts my leadership in this area...even with our finances, I do all the buying/choosing/management...but because I do these things does not mean I am not submissive to him...I honor him as the head of our household and he is our provider/leader..just because he has not problem with me leading many portions of it does not mean he is not ultimately leading...many kingdoms were not ruled by the king but his trustworthy aides/assistants....but they were still subject to him...I feel honored to be in this role and blessed to have a husband who cares so deeply for our family.

 

I appreciate your post, and you sound like you are happy with your role in your marriage. I can certainly respect that. I think the problem comes when women are forced into this role of being "under" someone. I am not "under" anyone, and I do not believe God intended for me to be. Yes, my husband provides for and protects our family. But I also provide for and protect our family. Neither of us lead the other. We are partners.

 

I once heard a very well respected leader in the homeschool community, who also happens to be a pastor and a husband, say that if a man truly loves his wife as God intended for him to, there will never be reason for her to have to submit. I believe that because it's the way my marriage works.

[Daisy]

The issue has only come up once or twice in our family. My husband does not impose his will upon me. He doesn't want me to submit. He likes a feisty wife and we are equals in our conversations and the vast majority of decision making. That said, the one time I can really remember where he had to just make the decision and I had to gracefully submit, was when we moved to California.

 

I didn't want to move here. And talk about crap factor. I definitely was the MOST passionate about it. I couldn't get beyond my emotions. Of course I felt completely justified in my passion. I had a job in WA. We had friends. We had family (his parents).

 

That said, my husband had to make a decision that was based on more than emotions. He didn't want to move here either but He had to consider our finances, his ability to provide for us on a single income (something we both wanted to eventually be able to do), long-term career stability, etc.

 

So he decided and I submitted.

 

I think we both regret moving to CA, but I haven't regretted submitting to his decision at all. I would however very much regret having imposed my will on him (which he would have given in to).

 

Bottom line, my husband has proven himself trustworthy over and over again. When it comes time for me to submit my will to his, I can rest assured that his decisions are based on what is best for our family.

[Impish]

It seems to me that the focus is always on the submission of women. But in the church, as I understand it, husbands are called to be servant leaders to the point of death. So the calling for submission is not about the husband's actions, but about the wife's willingness to put her own interest aside. The same goes for being a servant leader. It's about the husband putting aside his interest and sacrificing to the point of death for his wife. Submission on one side; sacrifice on the other. It's a win, win situation that basically calls both parties to not be selfish. Submission for the wife has nothing to do with how the husband acts. Sacrifice for the husband has nothing to do with how the wife acts. It's about both sides dying to self for the benefit of the other.

:iagree:

When we married, I was almost 30, Wolf was 35. We'd both been in charge of running our own lives for a long time.

 

Commence power struggle. Each of us was used to being in charge, not consulting anyone else, etc. Even though we did eventually learn to compromise, there was always an undercurrent of a power struggle.

 

In becoming stronger in my faith, the submitting to one another came to the forefront for me. I made the deliberate choice to step away from the power struggle, to end it.

 

The hilarious thing is, nobody who knows me would EVER accuse me of being submissive. Too outspoken, strong personality, passionate. My husband would be appalled if I were a door mat. He married me for my strengths as well as my flaws. The whole shebang. We're just not competing for top dog anymore...and whats actually happened is that neither of us hold that title. Its just gone, the whole tension.

 

He has his strengths, and I submit to those areas. I have my strengths, and he submits to those areas. The wonderful thing is, we compliment each other perfectly. My weaknesses are his strengths, and vice versa.

 

He brags about me at work. He delights in the strengths I have that he doesn't.

 

Once again, God knew what He was doing. ;)

[I.Dup.]

What you describe sounds like a Biblical example of submission. Submission isn't a wife doing whatever her husband wants without having a voice. It is basically unselfishness. The husband is to love the wife and in so doing will put her needs first. The wife is to submit to the husband because she considers his needs over hers. And when both work together (husband loving and wife submitting) it is beautiful. It isn't about one person getting his/her own way, but about sacrificing needs/wants for the sake of your partner.

 

Honestly, I never truly understood submission until after I was married. It sure isn't hard to put my husband's wants and needs first when he puts my wants and needs before his own;)

 

I agree with this. As Christians, we are called to live as Jesus did. He gave up His life for the good of others. As women, we are called to give up our wants, rights, needs, etc, and live in full submission to God. We get extra practice of this in giving up our "rights", wants, needs, in "submission" or unselfishness, for our husbands and children. Every Christian (male or female) is called to live in this way. It is never the Christian thing to be selfish, to fight for our own rights, to expect a certain type of treatment from others. Ideally, we would be completely abandoned to God and others- giving up our lives in service and love to them.

 

Also ideally, the husband would be doing the same thing for the wife. ;)

[dianachoate]

That sounds very much like us.

[YLVD]

I know you're not talking about yourself...but, I had no idea people still lived like that in this country until recently.

 

:confused:

 

On a side note...I have a minor in Germanic Studies. We read lots of European lit from the 1800s and before. One of the big themes in some of these stories was marriage/how women were viewed in the household/women as property, etc. There were lots of suicides. God gave us these gigantic brains for a reason. We're not supposed to be kids for 70 years. And, I don't buy the argument that "submit" means "work as a team". It just doesn't in my mind.

 

:iagree:

[ciyates]

My DH and I have very strong personalities. We often look at things very differently. Often we come to a decision where I feel one way and he feels another. Someone has to make a decision and go forward. Do I try and submit to him? YES. Am I successful? Sometimes. I have tried to take the attitude that I am honoring him. He often does the same thing. If he comes in and says we need a new car tomorrow I would not question him. However if I said we need to sell the house tomorrow due to our finances he would go out and get boxes. There are areas that we both defer to one another without question.

 

I love and adore my DH and after 18 years of marriage he feels the same way.

[Geo]

What you describe is how Biblical submission should work, imo. It's all about considering the best interest each other rather than making selfish decisions. Considering that husbands are told in Ephesians to love their wives as Christ loved the church, I don't think there's anything biblical about a man bossing his wife around and expecting her to be at his beck and call. Fortunately, I don't see that kind of marriage often.

 

AMEN!

[Skadi]

Thanks Nakia.

 

I only ask because we are currently discussing this section in 1st Peter 3 in our Bible Study group.

 

Personally, I am a complementarian in this area, not egalitarian.

 

That describes us, as well. My husband and I are atheists, but we believe that for us, if we were to say "We're a team, with each person standing on equal footing," we'd only be lying to ourselves. Equality is a nice idea, but in practice, not only do I believe we are not equal (because I believe men and women have their own set of strengths and weaknesses), but saying that you'd both like to compromise about the same number of times doesn't actually pan out. In the end, I think each person will constantly think it's "their turn" to have their way, and there are MANY issues where a neat and tidy compromise just is not possible.

 

Our relationship is built on a trust that allows us to discuss a problem, each offer our solutions, and after a time (if no sensible compromise presents itself), my husband will have the final word. Sometimes that final word is that we're going to try it my way. Sometimes that final word is that he's going to do it his way. The thing is, he isn't ruling over me with an iron fist, and he doesn't just say, "We're doing it my way," 100% of the time.

 

I would never say that someone who did not agree with this type of dynamic was crazy or oppressed or anything like that. But it's pretty common place to hear things like, "People who practice submissive/leadership roles are in a parent/child relationship, not a wife/husband relationship." So no, with all due respect, I don't think it's brave for to post what the OP did. Those ideas are held by the majority of our culture, and it's very rare that I see people belittling them to the extreme that they feel free to call names and demean those who take a different approach to marriage.

 

Oh, I don't wear a bun or carry a Bible, either. I'm not crazy and my relationship is not dysfunctional, nor would it be "better off" if we adopted some other method. Why can't people just focus on their own marriages and not worry so much about other people?

[Joanne]

I believe the Bible verses on structure of marriage reflect the culture of Bible times. Times when pederasty, fluid sexuality, expected male infidelity and the institutional subjugation of women was prevalent. I believe that Jewish\Hebrew culture was primarily responsible for changing that and transforming the status of women and elevating marriage with integrity.

 

The Proverbs 31 wife worked in beautiful conjunction with her husband. She was independent, autonomous, and equal.

 

Jesus, in whom there is no male or female, further transformed status.

 

I believe the Christian Bible supports mutual submission to each other, inspired by Christ. No human is an intercessory between me and God. I stand before Him, next to my husband, holding his hand, looking to Him.

[Erica in PA]

I once heard a very well respected leader in the homeschool community, who also happens to be a pastor and a husband, say that if a man truly loves his wife as God intended for him to, there will never be reason for her to have to submit. I believe that because it's the way my marriage works.

 

I'm not sure how this statement, or others made in this thread, square at all with Ephesians, which explicitly commands woman to *submit*, and husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Unless you decide to throw out Ephesians 5 totally, you can't deny what is being said there. There can and should be discussion about what God meant when he commanded women to submit to their husbands, and what that looks like (i.e. there is still discussion, both are still equally valuable to God, women are not doormats, etc.), but it is simply not biblical to suggest that women are not called by God to submit their husbands. When a man is loving his wife as God commands him to, it is much easier for a woman to submit to him and it functions beautifully the way God intended-- it brings both of them contentment. However, whether the husband fulfills his responsibility or not, the wife is still responsible to follow God's instructions to her. A loving husband still needs a wife who will submit (and a submitting wife still needs a loving husband) for their marriage to glorify God, according to Ephesians 5.

[tntgoodwin]

Held responsible to whom?

 

To God.

[historically accurate]

You sound a lot like us. Also, my husband is fairly laid back and doesn't give a hoot about having the "final word" on much. I, on the other hand, am very Type A about almost everything. The difference in personality means that a patriarchal, Vision Forum-ish lifestyle would drive both of us nuts. lol!

 

Yeah, that! :iagree:

[LauraGB]

I didn't want to move here. And talk about crap factor. I definitely was the MOST passionate about it. I couldn't get beyond my emotions. Of course I felt completely justified in my passion. I had a job in WA. We had friends. We had family (his parents).

 

That said, my husband had to make a decision that was based on more than emotions. He didn't want to move here either but He had to consider our finances, his ability to provide for us on a single income (something we both wanted to eventually be able to do), long-term career stability, etc.

 

So he decided and I submitted.

 

 

 

Maybe I just hate the word "submit", because your situation doesn't sound like submission to me - it sounds like making a really hard decision as a couple where one person doesn't or can't get his/her way. I would think that's pretty typical in a marriage. I don't see it as the image of "submission" I have in my head, I see it as a compromise.

[texasmama]

That describes us, as well. My husband and I are atheists, but we believe that for us, if we were to say "We're a team, with each person standing on equal footing," we'd only be lying to ourselves. Equality is a nice idea, but in practice, not only do I believe we are not equal (because I believe men and women have their own set of strengths and weaknesses), but saying that you'd both like to compromise about the same number of times doesn't actually pan out. In the end, I think each person will constantly think it's "their turn" to have their way, and there are MANY issues where a neat and tidy compromise just is not possible.

 

Our relationship is built on a trust that allows us to discuss a problem, each offer our solutions, and after a time (if no sensible compromise presents itself), my husband will have the final word. Sometimes that final word is that we're going to try it my way. Sometimes that final word is that he's going to do it his way. The thing is, he isn't ruling over me with an iron fist, and he doesn't just say, "We're doing it my way," 100% of the time.

 

I would never say that someone who did not agree with this type of dynamic was crazy or oppressed or anything like that. But it's pretty common place to hear things like, "People who practice submissive/leadership roles are in a parent/child relationship, not a wife/husband relationship." So no, with all due respect, I don't think it's brave for to post what the OP did. Those ideas are held by the majority of our culture, and it's very rare that I see people belittling them to the extreme that they feel free to call names and demean those who take a different approach to marriage.

 

Oh, I don't wear a bun or carry a Bible, either. I'm not crazy and my relationship is not dysfunctional, nor would it be "better off" if we adopted some other method. Why can't people just focus on their own marriages and not worry so much about other people?

 

I believe the Bible verses on structure of marriage reflect the culture of Bible times. Times when pederasty, fluid sexuality, expected male infidelity and the institutional subjugation of women was prevalent. I believe that Jewish\Hebrew culture was primarily responsible for changing that and transforming the status of women and elevating marriage with integrity.

 

The Proverbs 31 wife worked in beautiful conjunction with her husband. She was independent, autonomous, and equal.

 

Jesus, in whom there is no male or female, further transformed status.

 

I believe the Christian Bible supports mutual submission to each other, inspired by Christ. No human is an intercessory between me and God. I stand before Him, next to my husband, holding his hand, looking to Him.

 

Interestingly, both of the above posts ring true for me and my situation in marriage. (I am Christian, though, not atheist, as the first poster is.)

[justamouse]

Do you believe the husband is the head of the household and will be held responsible for how the members of the household live?

 

No. Because the only person responsible for my soul and my free will is me.

[*********]

I'm not sure how this statement, or others made in this thread, square at all with Ephesians, which explicitly commands woman to *submit*, and husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Unless you decide to throw out Ephesians 5 totally, you can't deny what is being said there. There can and should be discussion about what God meant when he commanded women to submit to their husbands, and what that looks like (i.e. there is still discussion, both are still equally valuable to God, women are not doormats, etc.), but it is simply not biblical to suggest that women are not called by God to submit their husbands. When a man is loving his wife as God commands him to, it is much easier for a woman to submit to him and it functions beautifully the way God intended-- it brings both of them contentment. However, whether the husband fulfills his responsibility or not, the wife is still responsible to follow God's instructions to her. A loving husband still needs a wife who will submit (and a submitting wife still needs a loving husband) for their marriage to glorify God, according to Ephesians 5.

 

THIS.

 

Ephesians 5:22-24, KJV:

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 

So far in this thread, I've seen discussion of the scriptures that: talk about all believers submitting to one another; instruct the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church; and how in Christ, there is neither male nor female.

 

I have not, however, seen any discussion on the passage I quoted; which plainly states that a wife should submit herself to her husband in everything.

 

The command here for wives is not dependent on anything. It doesn't say 'If your husband loves you as Christ loves the church, then you should submit to him'.

 

So those of you who do are Christian and do not believe that wives should submit to your husbands, how do you explain this passage?

 

ETA: I would just like to add, the instruction for wives to submit to their husbands is repeated in Colossians 3:18 (KJV):

 

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

Edited July 10, 2011 by bethanyniez
added additional scripture reference

[albeto]

They will put one another's interests ahead of their own. That's Biblical submission at it's best, and I firmly believe that's not re-writing what the Bible says. IMO, the English word for submit carries entirely different connotations than what the Bible teaches about marriage.

 

In English, "submit" means to yield to the authority of another. If a marriage practices submission, does each take turns to be the authority or is there authority understood in certain contexts? I always assumed the husband is the default authority and at the point where a compromise cannot be reached, his is the final decision. That's not to say there is no compromise ever, but should there be a stalemate, the authority of the husband would end the stalemate because, ideally, this is how God works (which raises the question, why doesn't God just tell the wife so there can be compromise?).

 

I once heard a woman say that her dh asked her opinion about something and she refused to give it, because he had to make the decision and she was staying out of it. I found that quite disturbing. Even if dh is the head of the household, wives are not supposed to lose their voice and personhood. Maybe it's because I'm a business major, but I think of it as a CEO/vice-president relationship. If the CEO of a corporation asks the VP for an opinion about something, the VP needs to get busy writing a memo or making a presentation. If the VP says he has no opinion and wants to leave the decision solely to the CEO, the VP is going to be fired.

 

I once heard that a wife's submission is not to her husband but to her strengths. A man generally has superior physical strength to a woman but the wife is understood to have general superior skills in getting her way. Her tongue, as it were, is stronger than his. Of course this inspires the stereotype of the henpecked man. Submission was explained to me as submitting one's unfair strength because the other is not equal and like you say, coercion, physical or verbal, is not voluntary submission.

 

I prefer the second explanation myself, and it resonates with the Christian faith as I understand it, but ultimately, the husband is still the final authority just as God is the final authority, which is what submission entails.

[justamouse]

THIS.

 

Ephesians 5:22-24, KJV:

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 

So far in this thread, I've seen discussion of the scriptures that: talk about all believers submitting to one another; instruct the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church; and how in Christ, there is neither male nor female.

 

I have not, however, seen any discussion on the passage I quoted; which plainly states that a wife should submit herself to her husband in everything.

 

The command here for wives is not dependent on anything. It doesn't say 'If your husband loves you as Christ loves the church, then you should submit to him'.

 

So those of you who do are Christian and do not believe that wives should submit to your husbands, how do you explain this passage?

 

That submit is not there. I said that before. It's not. In the Greek, it's not there. It's a mistranslation. It actually says Wives unto your husbands. I really think they were smart enough to put in submit in there if it was meant to be.

 

And you are reading an extremely patriarchal point in history, you're taking that whole text out of context and applying it in a way it's not meant to be.

Edited July 10, 2011 by justamouse

[*********]

That submit is not there. I said that before. It's not. In the Greek, it's not there. It's a mistranslation.

 

The passage I quoted has the word 'submit' in it twice; which one do you believe is not in the original Greek?

 

And what of the same direction given in Colossians 3:18?

[Veritaserum]

THIS.

 

Ephesians 5:22-24, KJV:

 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 

So far in this thread, I've seen discussion of the scriptures that: talk about all believers submitting to one another; instruct the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church; and how in Christ, there is neither male nor female.

 

I have not, however, seen any discussion on the passage I quoted; which plainly states that a wife should submit herself to her husband in everything.

 

The command here for wives is not dependent on anything. It doesn't say 'If your husband loves you as Christ loves the church, then you should submit to him'.

 

So those of you who do are Christian and do not believe that wives should submit to your husbands, how do you explain this passage?

 

ETA: I would just like to add, the instruction for wives to submit to their husbands is repeated in Colossians 3:18 (KJV):

 

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

 

Context of the age in which it was given. Not applicable today. Not an eternal blueprint for a good marriage.

 

Women were property when this was written. Only very recently have women been given the same status as males (and it could be argued that we're not quite there yet). I am not my husband's property. I am not my father's property. I belong to myself and to God. I work with my husband to make decisions for our family. A benevolent dictator is not what I want for a marriage partner. ;) I want (and have) an equal partner whom I respect, trust, and love just as he respects, trusts, and loves me. :)

[justamouse]

The passage I quoted has the word 'submit' in it twice; which one do you believe is not in the original Greek?

 

And what of the same direction given in Colossians 3:18?

 

I said in my post.

 

As for Col 3:18, you are taking ONE VERSE out of a whole letter and applying it in a way that it shouldn't be. You can't lift a verse here and there and stick it to where you think it works. That's proof texting and not good. That is the way of finding yourself in a cult.

 

You are also purposely ignoring the whole historical context because to do so suits your argument.

 

Do we stone people? Do we all wear headcoverings as a sign of marriage? Instead of rings? No.

[*********]

Context of the age in which it was given. Not applicable today. Not an eternal blueprint for a good marriage.

 

I am very familiar with this position.

 

I simply do not agree with it. :001_smile:

 

I am curious, for those of you who believe that certain scriptures in the New Testament are no longer applicable for today, how you decide which scriptures still apply to today, and which do not.

 

Serious question.

[albeto]

I once heard a very well respected leader in the homeschool community, who also happens to be a pastor and a husband, say that if a man truly loves his wife as God intended for him to, there will never be reason for her to have to submit. I believe that because it's the way my marriage works.

 

Do you think that when the letter to the Ephesians was written a woman would have discussed such issues with her husband in the way we do today in western culture?

[*********]

I said in my post.

 

As for Col 3:18, you are taking ONE VERSE out of a whole letter and applying it in a way that it shouldn't be. You can't lift a verse here and there and stick it to where you think it works. That's proof texting and not good. That is the way of finding yourself in a cult.

 

You are also purposely ignoring the whole historical context because to do so suits your argument.

 

Do we stone people? Do we all wear headcoverings as a sign of marriage? Instead of rings? No.

 

I was looking for discussion on how other Christian women understood the direction to submit to our husbands, as stated explicitly twice in the New Testament; and then I quoted the scriptures where it is stated.

 

I don't see how that's 'lifting a verse here and there and sticking it to where I think it works'. I'm genuinely trying to understand what other Christian women make of those commands in those verses.

 

As for your last paragraph, I have no idea what stoning people and wearing headcoverings have to do with one another. I myself could not make an argument that the New Testament directs believers to stone anyone; on the other hand, I *could* make an argument in regards to the wearing of a headcovering for a married believing woman. Either way, I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand.

[Veritaserum]

I am very familiar with this position.

 

I simply do not agree with it. :001_smile:

 

I am curious, for those of you who believe that certain scriptures in the New Testament are no longer applicable for today, how you decide which scriptures still apply to today, and which do not.

 

Serious question.

 

And I am familiar with your position and do not agree with it. ;)

 

I know that some Christians believe that one should take the whole Bible literally and accept it as the perfect manifestation of God's thoughts and teachings. I view the Bible as a manifestation of God's thoughts and teachings transmitted through fallible men. Therefore, verses like this one, which are at odds with other parts of the Bible that teach equality in Christ and mutual love and meekness, hold little weight.

 

It's very easy to see that this counsel made sense for the people in that time and may, in fact, have been an improvement for the women in that time and place. In our culture we have moved past the concept of women needing to be under the protection and guidance of a male authority figure, so verses like this simply do not apply. We have also moved past stoning, segregating menstruating women, an eye for an eye, etc.

 

I do not believe in a God that subjugates women under men.

[*********]

And I am familiar with your position and do not agree with it. ;)

 

LOL, fair enough. :D

[Erica in PA]

Context of the age in which it was given. Not applicable today. Not an eternal blueprint for a good marriage.

 

Women were property when this was written. Only very recently have women been given the same status as males (and it could be argued that we're not quite there yet). I am not my husband's property. I am not my father's property. I belong to myself and to God. I work with my husband to make decisions for our family. A benevolent dictator is not what I want for a marriage partner. ;) I want (and have) an equal partner whom I respect, trust, and love just as he respects, trusts, and loves me. :)

 

There is nothing in that passage to suggest that it is a cultural consideration. Paul appeals to an analogy between Christ and the church, an eternal relationship, so it's more reasonable to conclude that in fact it is an eternal blueprint for a good marriage. The only thing that makes anyone think it shouldn't be followed today, from all that I have read and heard, is that people today simply don't *like* it. It doesn't tickle our ears, or tell us what we want to hear about men and women and how God has designed us to function together in marriage. That is a very bad reason for dismissing truth from God's Word.

[Veritaserum]

There is nothing in that passage to suggest that it is a cultural consideration. Paul appeals to an analogy between Christ and the church, an eternal relationship, so it's more reasonable to conclude that in fact it is an eternal blueprint for a good marriage. The only thing that makes anyone think it shouldn't be followed today, from all that I have read and heard, is that people today simply don't *like* it. It doesn't tickle our ears, or tell us what we want to hear about men and women and how God has designed us to function together in marriage. That is a very bad reason for dismissing truth from God's Word.

 

I accept that that is your opinion, but I very strongly disagree. Would you prefer me to renounce Christianity as an antiquated, misogynistic religion? Because that is what your interpretation makes Christianity appear to be. Do you really mean to set up this dichotomy: accept a literal and infallible interpretation of the Bible or don't be a Christian?

 

Galations 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

If all of us are one in Christ, none is above or beneath another. Therefore, this power dynamic of God -> husband -> wife, doesn't make sense.

 

Should I divorce my husband so that I can be my own agent and have this setup: God -> me? Or do I fall back under my dad's authority: God -> my dad -> me. Am I less of a person because I am female? Does God really require me to have a male authority figure in my life (father, husband, brother, son, etc.)? I'm sure that He does not.

[justamouse]

I was looking for discussion on how other Christian women understood the direction to submit to our husbands, as stated explicitly twice in the New Testament; and then I quoted the scriptures where it is stated.

 

I don't see how that's 'lifting a verse here and there and sticking it to where I think it works'. I'm genuinely trying to understand what other Christian women make of those commands in those verses.

 

As for your last paragraph, I have no idea what stoning people and wearing headcoverings have to do with one another. I myself could not make an argument that the New Testament directs believers to stone anyone; on the other hand, I *could* make an argument in regards to the wearing of a headcovering for a married believing woman. Either way, I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand.

 

Because those (headcoverings and stonings) were ALSO a part of the culture of the times. You can't lift out only submission because it sounds a appropriate, and not listen to everything else, which is what you are doing. You are saying, "This I will literally interpret, this I will not."

 

It was not written in a void. There is a culture and history that go along with the letter-and, it's a letter. It's one half of the phone conversation and you need to know what was being addressed at that particular church that it as being written to.

[justamouse]

I accept that that is your opinion, but I very strongly disagree. Would you prefer me to renounce Christianity as an antiquated, misogynistic religion? Because that is what your interpretation makes Christianity appear to be. Do you really mean to set up this dichotomy: accept a literal and infallible interpretation of the Bible or don't be a Christian?

 

Galations 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

If all of us are one in Christ, none is above or beneath another. Therefore, this power dynamic of God -> husband -> wife, doesn't make sense.

 

Should I divorce my husband so that I can be my own agent and have this setup: God -> me? Or do I fall back under my dad's authority: God -> my dad -> me. Am I less of a person because I am female? Does God really require me to have a male authority figure in my life (father, husband, brother, son, etc.)? I'm sure that He does not.

 

Exactly.

[Veritaserum]

Because those (headcoverings and stonings) were ALSO a part of the culture of the times. You can't lift out only submission because it sounds a appropriate, and not listen to everything else, which is what you are doing. You are saying, "This I will literally interpret, this I will not."

 

It was not written in a void. There is a culture and history that go along with the letter-and, it's a letter. It's one half of the phone conversation and you need to know what was being addressed at that particular church that it as being written to.

 

:iagree: Historical and cultural context are important. :)

[Erica in PA]

I accept that that is your opinion, but I very strongly disagree. Would you prefer me to renounce Christianity as an antiquated, misogynistic religion? Because that is what your interpretation makes Christianity appear to be. Do you really mean to set up this dichotomy: accept a literal and infallible interpretation of the Bible or don't be a Christian?

 

Galations 3:28:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

If all of us are one in Christ, none is above or beneath another. Therefore, this power dynamic of God -> husband -> wife, doesn't make sense.

 

Should I divorce my husband so that I can be my own agent and have this setup: God -> me? Or do I fall back under my dad's authority: God -> my dad -> me. Am I less of a person because I am female? Does God really require me to have a male authority figure in my life (father, husband, brother, son, etc.)? I'm sure that He does not.

 

It's not anyone's responsibility to make the Bible or Christianity more palatable by skipping parts that don't appeal to some people. God's Word stands for itself, and I would not presume and disrespect God and His Word by suggesting that I can leave out parts or write them off to make someone else like Christianity better-- or to make myself happy, either. There are parts of the Bible that are obviously meant to be figurative. There are other parts that are clearly meant for a specific people or time-- but the Bible itself makes it clear which those parts are-- this section in Ephesians does not. Paul appeals to the relationship between Christ and the church-- when that changes, so will God's plan for marriage (it never will, because it is eternal).

 

I just think it would be much more honest for people to come right out and admit, "I think people can choose for themselves which parts of the Bible they want to follow. I don't like what the Bible teaches about women submitting to their husbands, so I choose to not believe that part." At least that would make their position clear, and avoid a lot of discussion about what the verses actually mean, because it wouldn't make any difference to those with that viewpoint anyway.

[Embassy]

I just think it would be much more honest for people to come right out and admit, "I think people can choose for themselves which parts of the Bible they want to follow. I don't like what the Bible teaches about women submitting to their husbands, so I choose to not believe that part." At least that would make their position clear, and avoid a lot of discussion about what the verses actually mean, because it wouldn't make any difference to those with that viewpoint anyway.

 

I think you may be missing an important point. There aren't just two positions among Christians. There aren't just two positions among people who take the Bible literally either. I think it may be a tad insulting to state that those who don't agree with a certain viewpoint don't like what the Bible teaches in those texts. They may fully believe what the Bible says in those texts, but their interpretation of what the text is saying may differ.

[Dustybug]

I'm new to the forum(just joined today!) but here are my .02.

 

I do submit to my husband and he is 100% the head of our household and I do believe that he will be held responsible by God for how he leads our family. (I will still be held responsible for my own sins and transgressions however).

 

I hate that when people hear the word "submit" they are quick to assume this means that my husband is just barking orders at me while I lie like a doormat. We are equals as people and to God, we are just different. We discuss things, he asks for my opinions and considers them, but ultimately he makes the final decision(which most of the time is one that we both are okay with=compromise). My husband is very loving, respectful, and kind to me.

 

Submission is a willful act, not one forced upon you. The Bible does clearly give this command though.

 

Also, I do wear skirts most of the time(not because I think you HAVE to though), but no hair buns or jumpers. :tongue_smilie:

[YLVD]

I'm new to the forum(just joined today!) but here are my .02.

 

I do submit to my husband and he is 100% the head of our household and I do believe that he will be held responsible by God for how he leads our family. (I will still be held responsible for my own sins and transgressions however).

 

I hate that when people hear the word "submit" they are quick to assume this means that my husband is just barking orders at me while I lie like a doormat. We are equals as people and to God, we are just different. We discuss things, he asks for my opinions and considers them, but ultimately he makes the final decision(which most of the time is one that we both are okay with=compromise). My husband is very loving, respectful, and kind to me.

 

Submission is a willful act, not one forced upon you. The Bible does clearly give this command though.

 

Also, I do wear skirts most of the time(not because I think you HAVE to though), but no hair buns or jumpers. :tongue_smilie:

 

I don't honestly equate submission with an overbearing husband. That has nothing to do with my feelings against it.

 

No matter how loving, wonderful and fair a husband is, in a marriage like that, a man's decision, judgment..whatever..is more valuable based on his gender. That makes no sense to me and I find it utterly offensive.

 

It seems like there are a lot of things said in the bible. I always wonder how people choose what to follow and what not to follow.

[Leonana]

There is nothing in that passage to suggest that it is a cultural consideration. Paul appeals to an analogy between Christ and the church, an eternal relationship, so it's more reasonable to conclude that in fact it is an eternal blueprint for a good marriage. The only thing that makes anyone think it shouldn't be followed today, from all that I have read and heard, is that people today simply don't *like* it. It doesn't tickle our ears, or tell us what we want to hear about men and women and how God has designed us to function together in marriage. That is a very bad reason for dismissing truth from God's Word.

 

What if a husband physically or emotionally abuses his wife? Should she submit to that?

 

I don't think anyone can follow that passage literally, unless they have a husband that treats them fairly. Even then, I doubt they follow it literally 100% of the time.

 

It's not anyone's responsibility to make the Bible or Christianity more palatable by skipping parts that don't appeal to some people. God's Word stands for itself, and I would not presume and disrespect God and His Word by suggesting that I can leave out parts or write them off to make someone else like Christianity better-- or to make myself happy, either. There are parts of the Bible that are obviously meant to be figurative. There are other parts that are clearly meant for a specific people or time-- but the Bible itself makes it clear which those parts are-- this section in Ephesians does not. Paul appeals to the relationship between Christ and the church-- when that changes, so will God's plan for marriage (it never will, because it is eternal).

 

I just think it would be much more honest for people to come right out and admit, "I think people can choose for themselves which parts of the Bible they want to follow. I don't like what the Bible teaches about women submitting to their husbands, so I choose to not believe that part." At least that would make their position clear, and avoid a lot of discussion about what the verses actually mean, because it wouldn't make any difference to those with that viewpoint anyway.

 

Okay, I'll say it. I don't take Paul literally, and do not choose to follow that part.

 

Boy, IME these in the middle positions can be tough. You have both the atheists and the fundamentalists coming after you.