Gender Equality. Who Should Be Submissive?

[Kayeliz]

Im hearing, "men, be independent".

May as well be singles and widows.

What do you mean? I don't really understand what you are criticizing.

 

[boogalaboogala]

Who Should Be Submissive?​

Gender Equality

In both the creation story and the teachings of Jesus we see that human evil and “hardness of heart” has led to men mistreating their wives. Masculine dominance is not God’s ideal, but a sad reality.

Now consider Paul’s teaching: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). A husband with a tendency to look down on women might use this passage as an excuse for continuing to put himself first. But such a person would be completely missing the point of the passage. Paul meant that everyone should be submissive, not just wives. The verse just before says, “Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Ephesians 5:21), that is, wives submit to husbands, and husbands submit to wives. The Christian way to greatness is through humility and submission, not through pride, rebellion and domination.

Peter, speaking on the same subject, said, Submit yourselves to every human ordinance for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13). This does not mean that every human ordinance is good. It simply means that we gain more through humility than through rebellion. He goes on to say, “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh…for what credit is it if when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer for it, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God” (1 Peter 2:18-20).

Peter then asks us to follow the example of Christ, who, “when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, threatened not” (1 Peter 2:23). “Likewise,” Peter says, “you wives be submissive to your own husbands” (1 Peter 3:1). The implication is clear: in submitting to their husbands, wives are like Christ when He submitted to His enemies. This does not make it right for the husband to dominate any more than it was right to crucify the Lord.

Never anywhere does the Bible say, “Husbands, rule over your wives!” The message to everyone is to be humble. “All of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5). “Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:27).

these are your own words: Never anywhere does the Bible say, “Husbands, rule over your wives!
and now for what scripture says: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3).
if you are going to print the story.. print all of the story..
the man is without doubt the head of the woman. and yes that means authority.. or does this not imply that Jesus has authority over us.. if not then what?
did Jesus not say that His sole purpose was to do the will of the Father.
i think it is pretty much self explanitory.. i mean that is written in the bible.. i gave you chapter and verse.. .. funny how you left that out though..
now, i am not saying that we should lord it over a woman.. but, yes, there is only one man of the house..

 

[Kayeliz]

Not sure of that should go on a separate thread, but I have seen those dicsussions very often and the one thing nobody has ever been able to explain to me is what it means for the woman to be submissive and the man having authority over her. I have seen a lot of opinions, from the extreme when men think it is alright to spank their wives for the smallest things such as "wrong attitude" and women not being allowed to work or to get an education to the other end where people might not even see on first glance that the woman accepts her husband as head of the household because she does it voluntarily, but still makes small decisions herself during the day and maybe even earns money.

As a woman, I find it hard to understand what submission means or how far it goes. My parents used to make all the big decisions together and I think my dad also happily got my mother's input on things, but I think he wouldn't even have seen the point of telling my mother what clothes to wear in the morning or how much money to spend on shopping - my mother was sensible and did her best to spend as little as possible anyway. My sisters and I were sent to grammar school, did our A-levels and went to university and nobody ever told us that was wrong, but some Christians talk like women are to go straight from their parents' home to a husband, no higher education and the husband dictates every detail and spanks her regularly.

What is the submission that God wants? What does it look like?

 

[Johnnz]

these are your own words: Never anywhere does the Bible say, “Husbands, rule over your wives!

But some teaching goes pretty close to that, under the term 'leader', implying or often stating 'authority over'.

and now for what scripture says: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3).
if you are going to print the story.. print all of the story..
the man is without doubt the head of the woman. and yes that means authority.. or does this not imply that Jesus has authority over us.. if not then what?

It's not that clear from those verses. Paul's order is Christ-man-God! Surely he was not presenting a hierarchy. More fundamentally though, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit. Some 'order' in that verse would deny the Trinity.

Your assumption that head means 'authority' is not a consensus view amongst Christians. There is debate, each side having different views, but that there is a debate means that any dogmatism is unfounded. In the above context, if it means 'authority over', then once again that conflicts with Trinitarian teaching.

did Jesus not say that His sole purpose was to do the will of the Father.
i think it is pretty much self explanitory.. i mean that is written in the bible.. i gave you chapter and verse.. .. funny how you left that out though..
now, i am not saying that we should lord it over a woman.. but, yes, there is only one man of the house..

On what basis do you say "'i am not saying that we should lord it over a woman" when a man as leader has the final say and his will prevails?In what way is a self sacrificing man a leader anyway. Just what would that look like within the context of 'authority over'.John
NZ

 

[Emmyc]

and now for what scripture says: "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ," (1 Cor. 11:3).
if you are going to print the story.. print all of the story..

It also says
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

But I wouldn’t say the bible condones slavery.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Yes, it is true that men owned women like property back in the day, and the bible says to basically do your best in the system you find yourself in.

But in God’s ideal men would submit to women (show his leadership by submitting first), putting them and their needs first, serving them (washing their feet as Christ washed the feet of his disciples), being a perfect role modle, perfectly loving guide and teacher, and willing to sacrifice everything for her (as Christ gave up his life for us). If he was offered a new job but it would take his wife away from her family and friends he would not take it, he would put her needs above his own ambitions…

And what women wouldn’t want to obey a man like that? If a man in my life always put me first, always knew what was best for me, always did what was morally right, always looked out for my needs above his own (in short was to me as Christ is to the church) you better believe I would obey him! Or at least I would do my best to.

 

[Johnnz]

But in God’s ideal men would submit to women (show his leadership by submitting first), putting them and their needs first, serving them (washing their feet as Christ washed the feet of his disciples), being a perfect role modle, perfectly loving guide and teacher, and willing to sacrifice everything for her (as Christ gave up his life for us). If he was offered a new job but it would take his wife away from her family and friends he would not take it, he would put her needs above his own ambitions…

And what women wouldn’t want to obey a man like that? If a man in my life always put me first, always knew what was best for me, always did what was morally right, always looked out for my needs above his own (in short was to me as Christ is to the church) you better believe I would obey him! Or at least I would do my best to.

That's how the NT presents relationships. The way of the cross is a very radical way of viewing and living life.

John
NZ

 

[SayaOtonashi]

both the husband and wife should submit. Paul uses hupotassomai

 

[Ringo84]

Nobody should be submissive. A man and a woman should be equal partners and a united front.
Ringo

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

...I don't know.. but I know people find it funny when a 6'3" 250 guy yields to the demands of a 5' 90 pound woman.

 

[ViaCrucis]

St. Paul says, "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Ephesians 5:21)

The answer of "who should be submissive" is you. Paul is speaking to you. "You" being everyone, you, me, Bob down the street, and his cousin Sally.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NorrinRadd]

...I don't know.. but I know people find it funny when a 6'3" 250 guy yields to the demands of a 5' 90 pound woman.

The fact that some people find it "funny" is all the more reason to do it. Shake 'em out of their carnal rut. But it may not be ideal that anyone is issuing "demands."

 

[Skybringr]

Paul meant that everyone should be submissive, not just wives. The verse just before says, “Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Ephesians 5:21), that is, wives submit to husbands, and husbands submit to wives.

Yeah, let's just skip right over the part where Paul teaches women to keep their mouths shut.

These verses do not mean what people try to make them. There is no such thing as gender equality, there is a head of household and church prescribed throughout the entirety of the Bible, from Abraham to Paul, and it is the man.

Why do people think that mankind from biblical, to early, middle, and late ages, and all the way up to about fifty years ago has always kept to this?
Because men are evil?

Pfft.

The only thing so called 'gender equality' has wrought is a 50% divorce rate, abortions, and the trivializing of man's needs altogether.
If anyone in general is not submitting, it is the women. They don't even want to submit to being women, and yet there is zero focus on any of that- it's all our evil men's fault.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Yeah, let's just skip right over the part where Paul teaches women to keep their mouths shut.

Yes, by all means let us do that, because one of those places most likely doesn't exist at all as Scripture, or else is an example of "mirror reading," and the other is poorly translated and applied inconsistently compared to the rest of the context.

These verses (note -- referring to Eph. 5:21) do not mean what people try to make them.

The fact that v. 22 does not contain any verb of its own, but rather "borrows" the "submit" verb from v. 21 where it applies to ALL believers surely means SOMETHING.

There is no such thing as gender equality, there is a head of household...

Such a term never occurs in Scripture.

... and church prescribed throughout the entirety of the Bible, from Abraham to Paul, and it is the man.

Interestingly, your version of "the entirety of the Bible" omits the very FIRST family, where man and woman were explicitly portrayed as equal partners.

Why do people think that mankind from biblical, to early, middle, and late ages, and all the way up to about fifty years ago has always kept to this?
Because men are evil?

Pfft.

Because humans are fallen, and generally gravitate to fallen, fleshly norms. It was only once we had a New and better Covenant wherein we could actually be born of the Spirit and united to Christ the Last Adam in a New Creation that there was even a remote hope of returning to the ideal of the original Creation. But even under this New Covenant, people want to cling to the bondage of the Old and obsolete, with priesthoods and sexism.

The only thing so called 'gender equality' has wrought is a 50% divorce rate, abortions, and the trivializing of man's needs altogether.
If anyone in general is not submitting, it is the women. They don't even want to submit to being women, and yet there is zero focus on any of that- it's all our evil men's fault.

Oh boo-hoo, poor us.

Divorce isn't about equality, it's about selfishness.

Abortion isn't about equality, it's about selfishness and disregard for innocent life.

Trivializing of men's needs -- Somebody call a waaahhhhmbulance. Equality isn't about raising women and lowering men, it's also about taking women off the proverbial pedestal, and unburdening men. The only "needs" that doesn't meet are the carnal ones embodied in the "might makes right" attitude of the Fall, shown in Gen. 3:16.

I suppose rape and physical abuse and intimidation and human trafficking all result from women collectively not being "submissive" enough. Sheesh.

 

[Johnnz]

Yeah, let's just skip right over the part where Paul teaches women to keep their mouths shut.

These verses do not mean what people try to make them. There is no such thing as gender equality, there is a head of household and church prescribed throughout the entirety of the Bible, from Abraham to Paul, and it is the man.


Whereas is taught by some Christians, it is not from sound exegesis and good theology.

Why do people think that mankind from biblical, to early, middle, and late ages, and all the way up to about fifty years ago has always kept to this?
Because men are evil?

Pfft.

That's right, (almost anyway) but living out o the consequences of sin as stated post Fall in Genesis. And the NT writers regard all manner of living and lifestyle, no matter how 'correct', to be 'flesh' not the new Life of the Spirit and that transforms the basis of every relationship.

The only thing so called 'gender equality' has wrought is a 50% divorce rate, abortions, and the trivializing of man's needs altogether.
If anyone in general is not submitting, it is the women. They don't even want to submit to being women, and yet there is zero focus on any of that- it's all our evil men's fault.

Do you know that amongst the most 'literal' groups of Bible professing Christians (the "God's word says this any all else in wrong types)" who advocate most strongly for male headship:
a) They have divorce rates around of higher than the general population;
b) They are inconsistent in that numerous women who hold those views actually make final decisions on many matters in their marriages i.e. in practice they are not consistent;
c) The same group reports the most dissatisfaction with their marriages than any other Christian group.

That argument also relies on modern family structures being te same as in NT times. Nothing could be further from reality.

And, given male dominance in history there is little comfort from the sad history of the world to suggest that men have been great models of decision making in general and within Christendom.

John
NZ

 

[Skybringr]

Divorce isn't about equality, it's about selfishness.

What else is it?
Men abusing women? Are you sure it isn't women just having demands which aren't met, so they go and marry, divorce, marry, divorce- until they are content?

Abortion isn't about equality, it's about selfishness and disregard for innocent life.

Women do not have preeminence over life. The fetus is not theirs alone.

And

If a man is a deadbeat because he won't raise a child, a woman is a deadbeat when she gets an abortion.

Trivializing of men's needs -- Somebody call a waaahhhhmbulance.

Trivializing women's needs- somebody call the 'waaahhhhmbulance'.

I mean seriously, did you hit your head on something or are you really just that ridiculous?

I suppose rape and physical abuse and intimidation and human trafficking all result from women collectively not being "submissive" enough. Sheesh.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression, like a rational person, that none of those things are ever going away unless we kill all men.

They really have nothing to do with the issue of gender equality, they are simply tools to manipulate people into feminism.




I suppose the fact that men get kicked out of their own houses and lose their children in custody battles, go broke, and basically have their lives wrecked isn't an issue to you at all.
That's a non-issue' right? Let's just 'look over' that, come up with some stupid denial complex or excuse to never mind it.

Why don't you try taking all things into account and get that high heel off your neck

 

[Armistead14]

Do you know that amongst the most 'literal' groups of Bible professing Christians (the "God's word says this any all else in wrong types)" who advocate most strongly for male headship:
a) They have divorce rates around of higher than the general population;
b) They are inconsistent in that numerous women who hold those views actually make final decisions on many matters in their marriages i.e. in practice they are not consistent;
c) The same group reports the most dissatisfaction with their marriages than any other Christian group.

That argument also relies on modern family structures being te same as in NT times. Nothing could be further from reality.

And, given male dominance in history there is little comfort from the sad history of the world to suggest that men have been great models of decision making in general and within Christendom.

John
NZ

Not to mention their wives complain of having miserable sex lives.

But the fact is, through the OT and several 100 years after Christ women had little to no rights.

 

[Skybringr]

The very fact that abortion is called to be an 'equal rights' issue says a lot about a great deal of things.

A women now gets to decide if a man is going to be a father, depending on what she wants.

This implies that the fetus is the sole property of the female, even though this will not be the case in the event she decides to keep it.

If abortion were to really be 'equal', a man should be able to choose to abort it.

The point to be made is that abortion is not something of equal rights, it's a way to have women have leverage over men for the sake of what they want.

This is why no man should be 'pro-choice'. It is not friendly to men, it's women putting heel to man's head.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On another subject, I have seen many of men be thrown out their houses, go to the bank to see their deposited paycheck missing, fight for custody and lose, return to their houses to see their furniture gone, and by the time it's all said and done, the women is dating another man.

How did this happen?
Women empowerment.




Two reasons right there why a male feminist is a complete idiot. Instead of consistently preaching against the imaginary 'inequality' women have, how about preaching something that will call out women for a change?

 

[Johnnz]

But the fact is, through the OT and several 100 years after Christ women had little to no rights.

That's not quite right. The NT in the Gospels and following on from His example the NT letters allowed women to function at al levels of the church, including the foundational functions of apostle and prophet(ess). It was later, under Greek influences, that the church fathers reinstituted patriarchy.

John
NZ

 

[NorrinRadd]

I note that you were ever so careful to avoid addressing any of the Scripture-based comments I made.

The only thing so called 'gender equality' has wrought is a 50% divorce rate, abortions, and the trivializing of man's needs altogether.
If anyone in general is not submitting, it is the women. They don't even want to submit to being women, and yet there is zero focus on any of that- it's all our evil men's fault.

I replied: Divorce isn't about equality, it's about selfishness.

What else is it?
Men abusing women? Are you sure it isn't women just having demands which aren't met, so they go and marry, divorce, marry, divorce- until they are content?

How is that different from selfishness?

How is that different from what men do?


I also replied: Abortion isn't about equality, it's about selfishness and disregard for innocent life.

Women do not have preeminence over life. The fetus is not theirs alone.

And

If a man is a deadbeat because he won't raise a child, a woman is a deadbeat when she gets an abortion.

That is unrelated to what I said. The root cause of abortion is selfishness and disregard for innocent life.

However, I do realize feminists try to paint abortion as an issue of equality and women's rights. It is a deplorable political tactic, and yet they are unfortunately somewhat correct. In the bad ol' days, women were so dependent upon, and so under the power of, husbands and fathers that they had almost NO voice in determining how to proceed with pregnancies.



I also said this: Trivializing of men's needs -- Somebody call a waaahhhhmbulance. Equality isn't about raising women and lowering men, it's also about taking women off the proverbial pedestal, and unburdening men. The only "needs" that doesn't meet are the carnal ones embodied in the "might makes right" attitude of the Fall, shown in Gen. 3:16.

Trivializing women's needs- somebody call the 'waaahhhhmbulance'.

I mean seriously, did you hit your head on something or are you really just that ridiculous?

I am just ridiculous enough to say more than the little snippet that got your frilly little britches in a bunch. I clarified for you the actual goal of Christian egalitarianism.


I closed by saying: I suppose rape and physical abuse and intimidation and human trafficking all result from women collectively not being "submissive" enough. Sheesh.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression, like a rational person, that none of those things are ever going away unless we kill all men.

They really have nothing to do with the issue of gender equality, they are simply tools to manipulate people into feminism.

I was under the impression, like a rational person, that lynchings and beatings and "separate but equal" restrooms and drinking fountains and "sit at the back of the bus" are never going away unless we kill all white people.

I suppose the fact that men get kicked out of their own houses and lose their children in custody battles, go broke, and basically have their lives wrecked isn't an issue to you at all.
That's a non-issue' right? Let's just 'look over' that, come up with some stupid denial complex or excuse to never mind it.

No, those things are wrong. They are not too unlike the error of "Affirmative Action." GENUINELY treating men and women as equals would go a long way toward eliminating those problems.

Why don't you try taking all things into account and get that high heel off your neck

I'm more impressed by arguments based on Scripture than on sob stories.

And there's no high heel on my neck, but thanks for your concern. Even if there were, I'd rather that than have my head stuck where I'd be more likely to get my neck bruised by colon polyps, like some people in this conversation.

 

[seeingeyes]

For the record: As a woman, I would follow a man who is willing to lay down his life for me to the far side of hell.

But for a man who whines about how nobody wants to follow him - I wouldn't follow him to the end of the block.