What is the woman's role in the family and church?

[Romans 8]

some of the people on this forum think that this type of emotional abuse of women is biblical. No, it’s simply misogyny and emotional abuse to restrict women’s roles. That includes restrictions on women being in the clergy. My church has had a female bishop since the 70s ( she’s retired now)

"Emotional abuse". Of coouurse! So God is abusive now?

 

[Brightmoon]

That sounds quite extreme. But, should women then rule the coop? I don't think having a mom in charge of the father is healthy for the kids. And then what, do we campaign for kids having two mommies or two daddies?
Where did the logic incubate that statess we do a complete reversal to compensate for a few cases of abuse?
I think that's great that your sons can do al of those things. So can I, and I do them all. But that's not the point of the thread. There is an order that should be kept for maximum benefit of all.

if you were on the receiving end of that whip you want cracked over a woman’s head you wouldn’t like it.

 

[Romans 8]

If he knows from the getgo that he can’t get away with disrespect he won’t disrespect you. Too many men think that bible based “ leadership “ means that they can bully or coerce and they’ll tell you that God set it up like that . I didn’t buy that particular nonsense even when I was a teenybopper and I’m in my 60s now

Absolutely not, and nobody in this thread is even hinting at this. This is what's referred to as a strawman attack. It's a logical fallacy. Your horse has been beat before it left the starting gate.

 

[Brightmoon]

"Emotional abuse". Of coouurse! So God is abusive now?

. A version of a deity I don’t accept. Yes I consider that immature behavior to be abusive. Women have to submit just because. ..... no

 

[Romans 8]

You’re avoiding the question. Do you agree with the way women were regarded and treated 200 years ago?

Literature from 200 years ago doesn’t indicate women were happier. Even in their romantic relationships, there was less intimacy and tremendously less sexual satisfaction.

So, for the feminists movement to take off, they had to drum up propaganda to brainwash the ladies in that time to stand up. So, I would bet there is no shortage of literature which would indicate just what you said. However, I haven't read any. Do you have any evidence for this?

 

[JacksBratt]

You actually have to work together to come to agreement, rather than giving one the right to have his own way.

What if there is no way. No compromise... Who is "getting their own way"? It's OK for the woman... but not OK for the man?

You persevere in exploring it together until you can agree.

In a marriage, or any relationship, there are going to be times when this is just not possible. Seriously...

If you say, "The man gets to decide," that's control. What recourse does his wife have, if he doesn't decide well?

She has the recourse to stand behind him. This is why it is so important to marry a Godly man who is someone who will treat her like she is part of his flesh. No man, like this would do something to injure himself... why would he do that to his wife?

Most of my leadership is exercised in the church, where it's very rare for one person to be making the call, rather than leadership being exercised collaboratively. Maybe because I work within that context I don't understand why others are insisting that's impossible.

In the church, you have a board.. right? They vote on things.. Is there not someone who is head of the whole board... How many marriages have more than two voting people.. How do you decide a stalemate?

[/QUOTE]Or.......there are two heads cause only one can make the decision. There is only one outcome. What then?[/QUOTE]

I just don't understand why this keeps getting brought up. They need to decide together. That's the stuff of a normal and healthy marriage where both partners are respected and equal.

By the way, @Romans 8 , the alternative to women being stay at home mums isn't necessarily institutional care. I went back to work when my daughter was twelve weeks old, and she's never spent so much as an hour in paid care. Creativity and flexibility go a long way to making sure the needs of everyone in the family are met.

Sorry, but this is not realistic... No marriage, ever has never came to a place where there is a decision to be made and they both cannot step down from their views.

 

[ChicanaRose]

Why are we completely ruling out the possibility that a man can lead without being abusive?

 

[Romans 8]

No; I want one head. I want unity. I want partnership, not hierarchy, not control.

If a Godly man doesn't use authority over a woman, then he doesn't need to argue that wives must submit. He will love his wife and seek to work with her. The ratio of decisions vetoed isn't the point; the fact that he always retains the right to veto is the point.

Honestly, if you were in such a relationship as described in the OP, you would be at your full potential and no one could convince you to change a thing.

 

[Romans 8]

I would just like to point out that in the Old Testament there were woman prophets (like Deborah and Miriam) and that people of God honored and listened to them. Food for thought. The way women were treated (or rather, commanded to be treated) by God's people in the OT was different to how they were treated in the days of Jesus for various reasons.

Can you give some examples please?

 

[Romans 8]

. A version of a deity I don’t accept. Yes I consider that immature behavior to be abusive. Women have to submit just because. ..... no

Did you read Genesis 3:16?

 

[Romans 8]

Why are we completely ruling out the possibility that a man can lead without being abusive?

They have only one side to them. The record just skips.

 

[Sparagmos]

So, for the feminists movement to take off, they had to drum up propaganda to brainwash the ladies in that time to stand up. So, I would bet there is no shortage of literature which would indicate just what you said. However, I haven't read any. Do you have any evidence for this?

Still not answering the question.

I’m not talking about feminist literature. Do you see in literature from men or women 200 years ago deep intimacy and sexual satisfaction in couples?

 

[Paidiske]

What if there is no way. No compromise... Who is "getting their own way"? It's OK for the woman... but not OK for the man?

No. They need to work together to come to an agreement. That might be more preferred by one or the other, but both ought to agree to it; not one overruling the other.

In a marriage, or any relationship, there are going to be times when this is just not possible. Seriously...

I don't believe that. They do need to both be committed to working equally.

She has the recourse to stand behind him. This is why it is so important to marry a Godly man who is someone who will treat her like she is part of his flesh. No man, like this would do something to injure himself... why would he do that to his wife?

The recourse to stand behind him... That's a recipe for awfulness. Any woman who's been told to go home and submit to the man who beats her knows that.

Why do men do it? Because they can. Because they're immature. Because they're sinful. Whatever. But it happens, far too much, and we need to have better answers than to tell women to stand behind the men who destroy them.

In the church, you have a board.. right? They vote on things.. Is there not someone who is head of the whole board... How many marriages have more than two voting people.. How do you decide a stalemate?

I chair the parish council, but that doesn't mean I get to overrule them.

There are all sorts of methods for deciding a stalemate. I have a book on my shelf on conflict resolution for couples that offers twenty-something different approaches. It's not impossible.

Sorry, but this is not realistic... No marriage, ever has never came to a place where there is a decision to be made and they both cannot step down from their views.

I'm in such a marriage. We work together and make decisions together. We don't need one person to be given the right to overrule the other.

Why are we completely ruling out the possibility that a man can lead without being abusive?

Because making the man the leader by default is abusive.

 

[derpytia]

You just won't let this go

I don't think that women should not work. Today, most women must work to keep the family afloat. But the ideal situation is a man working, and a woman staying home with the kids. Instead children are raised by institutions. I have met Christian moms that home school their children, and those were some of the most respectful, intelligent, healthy kids I've ever seen. They go on field trips daily and meet with other home schooled kids and their moms. It's amazing and it's beautiful.

Being a woman who doesn't have to work and can home school their children is a PRIVILEGE. You said it yourself. "Today, most women must work to keep the family afloat." If you are lucky enough to come from a family that is well off financially and there is no emotional or physical abuse or tragedy in your family then marrying someone and having this ideal situation you describe is easy peasy.

But that is not the reality for MOST women. What you describe as the ideal situation is a PRIVILEGE. It isn't common and it isn't the situation for most women in the world, including Christian women. This world is getting uglier and uglier and harder and harder to live in. Most families are one tragedy, health problem, or crisis away from being out on the streets. And that isn't for lack of trying either. Most people want to work and have their work amount to being able to comfortably provide for their families. But most people are not able to do that.

And yet, those who are able to do that look down on those of us who can't and then try to shame us for not measuring up and then slap us metaphorically in the face with the kind of things you started this thread out with. This is a FALLEN world. Things and people are not going to turn out the way we want. Even though you know how it ought to go you must accept that it will not happen a lot of the time and find it in yourself to be compassionate and to refrain from judging your fellow man in a way that is not constructive nor Christlike.

Furthermore, your attitude for how women should be treated should be modeled after how Jesus treated women. Period.

 

[derpytia]

duplicate post

 

[Romans 8]

Being a woman who doesn't have to work and can home school their children is a PRIVILEGE. You said it yourself. "Today, most women must work to keep the family afloat." If you are lucky enough to come from a family that is well off financially and there is no emotional or physical abuse or tragedy in your family then marrying someone and having this ideal situation you describe is easy peasy.

But that is not the reality for MOST women. What you describe as the ideal situation is a PRIVILEGE. It isn't common and it isn't the situation for most women in the world, including Christian women. This world is getting uglier and uglier and harder and harder to live in. Most families are one tragedy, health problem, or crisis away from being out on the streets. And that isn't for lack of trying either. Most people want to work and have their work amount to being able to comfortably provide for their families. But most people are not able to do that.

And yet, those who are able to do that look down on those of us who can't and then try to shame us for not measuring up and then slap us metaphorically in the face with the kind of things you started this thread out with. This is a FALLEN world. Things and people are not going to turn out the way we want. Even though you know how it ought to go you must accept that it will not happen a lot of the time and find it in yourself to be compassionate and to refrain from judging your fellow man in a way that is not constructive nor Christlike.

Furthermore, your attitude for how women should be treated should be modeled after how Jesus treated women. Period.

I think we agree. You sound like you agree with me on most things. But if you could see that the submitting/leading part of the relationship would not even be noticed if both parties played their role. You sound like an easy going person, and I hope you understand that it's not about oppression. I have zero desire to rule over anyone. I want a partner that is feminine and isn't going to battle on every decision that needs to be made. I don't want any male-like attributes in my partner. I want a woman. Do you know what I mean? Feminism reverses the roles of men and women. It's just so unattractive.




Yes, women should be treated like Jesus treated them. But He was still the head.

 

[archer75]

I think we agree. You sound like you agree with me on most things. But if you could see that the submitting/leading part of the relationship would not even be noticed if both parties played their role. You sound like an easy going person, and I hope you understand that it's not about oppression. I have zero desire to rule over anyone. I want a partner that is feminine and isn't going to battle on every decision that needs to be made. I don't want any male-like attributes in my partner. I want a woman. Do you know what I mean? Feminism reverses the roles of men and women. It's just so unattractive.




Yes, women should be treated like Jesus treated them. But He was still the head.

Where did you get the idea that every decision is a battle?

 

[Romans 8]

Where did you get the idea that every decision is a battle?

I'm sorry, I thought you were married

 

[ChicanaRose]

We all make sacrifices for good things in life.

We do this for ourselves:
If we want to buy a nice house, we don't go on a vacation for a while so we can save money.

and

We do this for the LORD:
Some Christians may give up going on a vacation for a while so that he can contribute to the building expansion of his church.

So what is wrong with giving up a little bit of control over my life (like 0.01 percent) so I can have a good marriage?

All good things in life come with trade-offs.

 

[Romans 8]

Still not answering the question.

I’m not talking about feminist literature. Do you see in literature from men or women 200 years ago deep intimacy and sexual satisfaction in couples?

I would doubt that people in that time period would openly discuss their sex lives. And since most married couple had large families I presume the sex life was a bit on the rich side.