• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
In short, the whole discussion boils down to the fact that tall73 is trying to explain that the New Testament standard of family is the norm and so it should be: just as Christ is the head of the church, so the husband is the head of the wife. But Paidiske objects that the New Testament text can be misinterpreted if we do not take all the recommendations in their entirety (about love and sacrifice), but only about submission.

Fulfillment of the New Testament standard can be hindered by:
1) for example, either the husband is an unbeliever, and the wife has come to faith, or vice versa and the other party does not share these beliefs;
2) both came to God, consider the New Testament to be the authority, but did not heal sinful passions and either the husband wants to rule out of selfishness and vanity, or the wife, out of conceit, wants to command her husband (one of the spouses or both considers himself smarter and always right).

I have not seen any other options why a family cannot live according to the New Testament standard. The 1st millennium saint Abba Dorotheos wrote that it is impossible to please God if you do not overcome pride. Pride cannot be overcome unless one renounces one’s will. Submitting your will to the will of God and the will of your neighbor is the path to that humility about which Jesus Christ speaks: “Learn from Me that I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: tall73
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,837
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,706,573.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What if a husband, wife or child (no matter) wants to hang himself or commit suicide in some other way? Do you also just need to convince, or can and should you use physical force to keep you from doing this?

This is an extreme example. But you also give many extreme examples.
I have already agreed that we are not talking about preventing significant harm, when we talk about the problem with control.
Fulfillment of the New Testament standard can be hindered by:
1) for example, either the husband is an unbeliever, and the wife has come to faith, or vice versa and the other party does not share these beliefs;
2) both came to God, consider the New Testament to be the authority, but did not heal sinful passions and either the husband wants to rule out of selfishness and vanity, or the wife, out of conceit, wants to command her husband (one of the spouses or both considers himself smarter and always right).

I have not seen any other options why a family cannot live according to the New Testament standard.
I am not saying that they "cannot" live in a patriarchal (because make no mistake, that's what New Testament households were) set up. But I am arguing that doing so is not what best promotes the flourishing of all the members of the household. It's not a matter of pride; it's a matter of ensuring that the wife has just as much scope to use her intellect, her wisdom, her gifts, for good as is possible, rather than stifling those things by reducing their scope.
 
Upvote 0

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
But I am arguing that doing so is not what best promotes the flourishing of all the members of the household. It's not a matter of pride; it's a matter of ensuring that the wife has just as much scope to use her intellect, her wisdom, her gifts, for good as is possible, rather than stifling those things by reducing their scope.
The fact is that any abilities in a person (male and female) require time to develop. And here it is important to set priorities correctly: what is more important. For example, if I spend an hour of time every day learning a foreign language, then I take this hour of free time away from developing other skills in myself.

In Russia there lives a nun who taught psychology at the university somewhen, Professor Nina Krygina. She told: “When I was studying at the institute, our teacher once said: “Girls, remember for the rest of your life: an intelligent person and an intelligent woman are NOT THE SAME.” Why? An intelligent person has erudition and extraordinary thinking. When communicating, a intelligent wife does not show off her intellect, especially in the family. She tries to carefully find the very solution, the SOFTEST, the most painless, that would suit everyone in the family, in order to help her husband, and so that everything is PEACEFUL and CALM. But many women are not smart. They go into a frontal attack, they act like fighters in the ring and force the husband to give in." She says that the mistake of many women is that they consider themselves right in everything and do not help their husband find a synergistic solution that would suit both, but they begin to achieve their goal very harshly. Nina Krygina advises: “You can say a lot of options (if we do this, then there will be these consequences, and if we do this, then there will be these consequences, etc.), but the main thing is to finish subtly: “You are the head - as you decide, so it will be.” This shows that the woman values and respects her husband. And when the husband feels such an attitude, then he too begins to appreciate and respect his wife even more."

But the fact is that no one teaches women this before marriage. And them have to learn this. If a woman only learns to be a good programmer, accountant or professor, but neglects this science (the ability to listen, understand, control her emotions, find mutually acceptable options), then she cannot be happy in family life. She will make mistakes and insist on her own, her husband will make mistakes and insist on his own, and they will constantly have conflicts. As one priest said, in the kingdom of heaven there will be no need for accountants, psychologists, doctors, or engineers, but there will be a need for people who know how to love, be meek, humble and kind. This is what the New Testament teaches us.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,837
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,706,573.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But the fact is that no one teaches women this before marriage.
You are mistaken; I heard a lot of this kind of messaging before I was married. But I disagree that we have to abdicate all decision making to husbands in order to show that we value and respect them. Any man who needs that, in order to feel valued and respected, is in a very unhealthy place.
If a woman only learns to be a good programmer, accountant or professor, but neglects this science (the ability to listen, understand, control her emotions, find mutually acceptable options), then she cannot be happy in family life. She will make mistakes and insist on her own, her husband will make mistakes and insist on his own, and they will constantly have conflicts.
My only disagreement with this is that it's not true only for women, but for men also. Men need the ability to listen, understand, control their emotions, and find mutually acceptable options; that's part of being a mature person, male or female.
 
Upvote 0

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
My only disagreement with this is that it's not true only for women, but for men also. Men need the ability to listen, understand, control their emotions, and find mutually acceptable options; that's part of being a mature person, male or female.
I agree with this, but it was talking about the mistakes of women.
You are mistaken; I heard a lot of this kind of messaging before I was married. But I disagree that we have to abdicate all decision making to husbands in order to show that we value and respect them. Any man who needs that, in order to feel valued and respected, is in a very unhealthy place.
But without respect there is no love. Do you think that a woman who does not respect, appreciate and love her husband is in a healthy state?
 
Upvote 0

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
And modernity has nothing to do with it. The Apostle wrote: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Romans 12:2)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tall73
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,837
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,706,573.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But without respect there is no love. Do you think that a woman who does not respect, appreciate and love her husband is in a healthy state?
I am not arguing for a lack of respect. But I am arguing that "respect" is not expressed by being a fawning subordinate.

I'm reminded of this clip: Don’t let small frustrations get in the way. Honor each other and build greatness together. Pastor Eugene preached a great message on honor. Watch the full message on YouTube. ✨ | Our Savior's Church | oursaviorschurch · Original audio In it, a pastor recommends that if a wife wants a husband to do a chore around the house, instead of just asking him, she ought to flatter him by playing up his strength and how weak she is in comparison, and how much she needs the big strong man to do the thing. It's petty, and manipulative; it suggests that a husband will only want to contribute to his own household if it boosts his ego and self-image. (As one comment I saw online said, it's as if "men are designed to lead, but only if women trick them into doing it.")

That's not respect. Frankly, it reflects a pretty low view of men. And your suggestion that "respect" can only be conveyed by abdicating any involvement in decision making comes across similarly.
 
Upvote 0

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I am not arguing for a lack of respect. But I am arguing that "respect" is not expressed by being a fawning subordinate.

I'm reminded of this clip: Don’t let small frustrations get in the way. Honor each other and build greatness together. Pastor Eugene preached a great message on honor. Watch the full message on YouTube. ✨ | Our Savior's Church | oursaviorschurch · Original audio In it, a pastor recommends that if a wife wants a husband to do a chore around the house, instead of just asking him, she ought to flatter him by playing up his strength and how weak she is in comparison, and how much she needs the big strong man to do the thing. It's petty, and manipulative; it suggests that a husband will only want to contribute to his own household if it boosts his ego and self-image. (As one comment I saw online said, it's as if "men are designed to lead, but only if women trick them into doing it.")

That's not respect. Frankly, it reflects a pretty low view of men. And your suggestion that "respect" can only be conveyed by abdicating any involvement in decision making comes across similarly.
Here I agree that such flattery is a crutchs for the spirituallydisableds. Maybe the husband will do everything his wife wants, but his motives will be vicious in this case.

A good motive is to do the will of God. A bad motive is to do something for the sake of praise, and even more so if it is flattery.

It is enough for the wife to make it clear that she remembers the order established by God (Christ -husband-wife) and to ask for fulfilling the will of God to fairly distribute responsibilities (so that no one is overloaded and no one is underworked).

I did not say that we should refuse to participate in decision-making completely. And psychology professor Nina Krygina didn’t say that. Re-read what she advises. The wife can offer all possible options and all possible consequences of the options on her part. Perhaps my husband will add his own options. And then she will ask him to decide which option is better. Of course, we are not talking about this option being better for anyone. It should be as good as possible for both of them.
 
Upvote 0

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I am not arguing for a lack of respect. But I am arguing that "respect" is not expressed by being a fawning subordinate.
The point is not that a person (husband or wife) should crave some kind of praise from people (from her husband or wife) and do everything, if not for money, then for such praise. This is a vicious motive. Of course, one must do deeds of love, as out of feelings for one’s neighbor (husband or wife) as for the sake of the commandment to love one’s neighbor.

But there is one more thing. I knew a married couple who wanted to build a Christian family. And all the relatives on both sides were non-Christians, non-believers. And so, literally from the first days after they submitted the application for marriage registration, they began to slander the husband against his wife, and the wife against her husband. They defended themselves from these attacks, protecting each other. But when there were strong conflicts between them (which probably not rarely happens in families now), they remembered all the bad things that those around them said about the other spouse. And at such moments, a good testimony from neighbors, from friends is very important: you have a good husband, and you have a good wife, because such and such arguments. If there was no such thing, then it was very important to remember the praises that they spoke to each other in a peaceful state.

In short, it is very important for each party to feel valued, loved and respected during storms like these (which the devil builds).
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,837
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,706,573.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In short, it is very important for each party to feel valued, loved and respected during storms like these (which the devil builds).
Sure. What I'm questioning is some of the ideas of what makes us feel respected (or disrespected). If healthy disagreement is received as disrespect, that's a real problem.
 
Upvote 0

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sure. What I'm questioning is some of the ideas of what makes us feel respected (or disrespected). If healthy disagreement is received as disrespect, that's a real problem.
You write too abstractly, making you difficult to understand. Give specific examples.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,837
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,706,573.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You write too abstractly, making you difficult to understand. Give specific examples.
Earlier, you suggested that a woman should say to her husband: “You are the head - as you decide, so it will be.” And you said that this shows that the woman values and respects her husband.

I am trying to say that it is possible to respect a husband, and still disagree with whatever course of action he may propose; disagree even to the point of not going along with it. Respect does not equal automatic deference on every point, and if a husband feels disrespected by a lack of such deference, that is a really unhealthy thing.
 
Upvote 0

ValeriyK2022

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2022
588
364
Kyiv region
✟79,142.00
Country
Ukraine
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Earlier, you suggested that a woman should say to her husband: “You are the head - as you decide, so it will be.” And you said that this shows that the woman values and respects her husband.

I am trying to say that it is possible to respect a husband, and still disagree with whatever course of action he may propose; disagree even to the point of not going along with it. Respect does not equal automatic deference on every point, and if a husband feels disrespected by a lack of such deference, that is a really unhealthy thing.
You always bring some pathological extremes.
You may disagree, for example, with your boss at work or with your elder at church. But your disagreement is very tactful and respectful, otherwise you may be fired from your job, and in church you also cannot be rude to the elder. Is not it?
So both men and women know well how to object respectfully. No need to pretend to be a fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tall73
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,681
6,104
Visit site
✟1,045,154.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's an overly broad statement of my position. I'd say that the use of Scripture to attempt to control or coerce another is abusive.

There's a world of difference between, "Honey, I'm really concerned about x, and part of the reason why is my reflection on y Scripture; can we talk about that together?"

If your spouse is committing one of the sins that the Scriptures say will result in that spouse not inheriting eternal life, then I think you can introduce it with this approach "Honey, I'm really concerned about....because of Scripture..." and it will still get pretty quickly to a difficult conversation.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11​
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)​

Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. That is what the Scriptures say. And a husband who loves his wife and wants her to know the Lord in this life and eternity will certainly be concerned about that, and it should show in any such conversation, in tone, etc. Yes, it is an appeal. But it cannot avoid the spiritual reality. And, of course it should also hold out the hope of Scripture that Christ forgives, cleanses, etc.

Regarding your second "extreme":

You are sinful and in rebellion, I can cite xyz Scriptures to prove that you ought to be doing what I tell you right now, and if you don't, you'll be damned forever, you [insert various terms that would trip CF's profanity filter].​

Obviously terms that trip the profanity censor, or speech in the manner that would produce them are never appropriate, or helpful:

Ephesians 4:26 “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil. 28 Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. 29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you. (NKJV)​

Regarding your two options, it seems you are promoting the notion that relating real consequences , per Scripture, equates to coercion.

Yes, there will be "reflection" if such a Scripture is read. Someone sinning in such a way that they would be excluded from inheriting the kingdom of God needs warning. It should be in love, it should be with an aim to win her over, but it is still a warning. And it is not coercion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ValeriyK2022
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,681
6,104
Visit site
✟1,045,154.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think my reaction to the raising of this story here is that it was obviously a very complex, nuanced situation that developed over quite some time; we get it summed up really in a soundbite; and it seems to me unreasonable to use that soundbite as the basis for a system of family governance, when we really know very little about it.

It is rather straight-forward that Eli was held responsible for not restraining his sons.


1Sa 3:13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them.​

Your concerns about all the details leading to that do not deflect from the accountability that Eli is said to have before God.

But you also have this notion in other texts, in the NT, calling the father to accountability in disciplining his children:

Ephesians 6:4 4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.​

A father is told to not provoke, but also given the positive commandment to bring up his children in the training and admonition of the Lord. This is not optional. And he will be held to account. And note that it spells out the scope--the Lord's will, not the father's. It is delegated authority and responsibility.

So how is it mysterious?

One of the requirements of an overseer is to manage his house well, including keeping his children submissive:

1 Timothy 3:4-5 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?​
How is it mysterious?


However, having thought about it overnight (Australian time, at least), it seems to me that there are several points that come up for me out of our discussion:
- You have articulated an understanding of headship that is expressed in persuasive (not coercive) leadership aimed at the prevention/limitation of sin within the household.

Correct, and also promoting positive worship and service of the Lord. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

- That is not, however, spelled out in Scripture.

Of course it is. I already discussed above the aspects related to children.

And we have looked for some time at the texts about headship in regards to the spouse. But it is not headship that tells the husband to do whatever he wants. It is headship that is delegated by God for the purpose stated:

Ephesians 5:25-28 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.​
Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. The husband is to lay down his life for his wife, and his call, in imitation of Christ, is to present her holy. He is called to manage his house well, in service of the Lord.

And as we saw, Adam was held responsible for sin coming into the world. He did not fulfill his duty, and Romans 5 said that sin and death came into the world through him.

Ahab also, though his wife incited him, was responsible for taking her as his wife, and for all the sin that they both committed.

1 Kings 16:30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him. 31 And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took for his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal and worshiped him. 32 He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. 33 And Ahab made an Asherah. Ahab did more to provoke the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him.​

1 Kings 21:20 Ahab said to Elijah, “Have you found me, O my enemy?” He answered, “I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of the LORD. 21 Behold, I will bring disaster upon you. I will utterly burn you up, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. 22 And I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, for the anger to which you have provoked me, and because you have made Israel to sin. 23 And of Jezebel the LORD also said, The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the walls of Jezreel.’ 24 Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the heavens shall eat.” 25 (There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited. 26 He acted very abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the LORD cast out before the people of Israel.) 27 And when Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly.​

And we saw that if a husband does not treat his wife with respect his prayers are hindered in I Peter 3, and we saw the same principle in Malachi where the man who broke faith with the wife of his youth would no longer have his sacrifice accepted.

I am not criticising your position as incompatible with Scripture (it's a lot better than many other complementarians'), but I'm pointing out that it would be very hard to read the relevant texts, and say, the texts clearly mean exactly your position and nothing else.

I would say it would be much harder to read the texts and say, as you have, that they do not speak of headship, when it is referenced, of a father having responsibility for his children and his household, as they are also referenced.

You have made hermeneutical choices, it seems to me, based on principles in addition to a plain reading of the text.

It is based on both the text, and also principles expressed in various texts. Delegated authority form the Lord is always limited to the scope and purpose He sets down.


- Your position is also not how headship and submission are generally understood, preached, talked about, written about, in various Christian circles.

If you are quote mining from those who do not recognize the limitations, scope, etc. spelled out for delegated authority, certainly. But I do not at all think I am the only one to notice that a husband is to manage his household, and bring up his children in the Lord, not just according to his whim, but according to the Lord's command.

The various distortions of that teaching in some "circles" is not the only view of headship. And addressing that distortion is not addressing what the text says.


As partly demonstrated by the fact that it took a good portion of 29 pages for me to understand quite what you were advocating, and how it was different from how headship and submission have been taught and encouraged, in my experience.

A good portion of that was discussing your general disagreement with the notion of the husband being head and wives submitting, even though the text says it. And a good deal of time was also spent looking further into what submission, and submitting to one another in love means.

And of course, we also looked at your general method of hermeneutics, principles regarding other authority that the Lord delegates to people, etc.

In general, I would say your understanding of how headship is seen in some "circles" rather slowed the process to begin with. A number of elements of my view were stated fairly early on, but you appeared to interpret them only in the framework of what you already heard from other "circles".

- I would also point out that reading the two statements in the OP, your position is much closer to the second, than to what most people would understand on a straightforward reading of the first.

Already mentioned, I am not Southern Baptist. Also, we would have to look in more detail at the first statement.

- It seems to me that you are trying to hold a complementarian theology, but set such (ethical, sound) limits on how it is lived out in practice, that it is pragmatically no different from egalitarian marriage (noting that there is nothing wrong with, and much good in, everyone seeking to exercise persuasive leadership aimed at the prevention/limitation of sin within the household).

I stated from the outset that in many instances there will be little difference between the two, when dealing with conflict, because in most cases decisions will be made in the same way egalitarians reach them. It should have been no surprise. There is a limited scope to delegated authority. And it is further directed by life in the Spirit.

And with all of that in mind, I'd say, what you are advocating is much closer to mutual submission, than a one-sided submission/headship dynamic, in the practicalities of how it is lived out.

I stated from the beginning that submittion to one another in love is commanded, and part of my view! But you see that as in opposition to spiritual roles of headship/leadership/authority. It is not.

As pointed out, there can be submission to the will of another, and looking out for the other person's interests even in roles where there are diferences in authority (husband and wife, parent and child, and in the most radical example, Jesus, Who Is God, still submitting to his parents).


Which leaves me with a couple of points:
- Headship/submission, as it is commonly understood, taught, and promoted to Christians, is not what you are advocating for. It is something far unhealthier, far more controlling and abusive, and far more dangerous.

Once again, distortions of Scriptural principles do not undermine actual Scriptural principles.

I submit that anyone wanting to take your position - headship is real and important, but basically expressed as persuasive leadership aimed at limiting sin - needs to be much clearer and more strongly advocating for those limits, rather than simply arguing for headship in a way that can all too easily be taken as offering support for the abusive dynamics, and the wider Christian discourse that sets up those abusive dynamics, as being what God prescribes.

It is rather hard to go by how clear it was to you, because when stating elements of my view all along, they still seem to have been a surprise to you in the end.

But I trust some reading along still saw these points referenced.

- If what you are advocating for is pragmatically no different from egalitarian marriage, perhaps it would be fair to allow that egalitarians are not so off-beam in their application of Scripture, either.

There are pragmatic differenences in recognizing that the Christian father and husband is called to account for his whole family, and is to exercise his authority in line with God's will, encouraging them in the admonition of the Lord.

And I already spelled out, from the beginning, that I agree with the principles of submitting to one another, to both spouses having shared dominion over the earth, to both being heirs of eternal life, etc.

But no, I do not find agreement in the hermeneutic that you have stated that does not take statements set in theological arguments as anything other than cultural elements.

The New Testament apostles spelled out headship in letters to the churches, specifically addressing what Christian family life was to look like, in theological terms, and in comparison to the Headship of Christ. I don't disregard that as outdated. We do not agree on hermeneutics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,837
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,706,573.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You always bring some pathological extremes.
They're not pathological extremes. I bring up actual things I see in real life, in people claiming to be Christians, claiming that what they are doing is what Scripture requires.
You may disagree, for example, with your boss at work or with your elder at church. But your disagreement is very tactful and respectful, otherwise you may be fired from your job, and in church you also cannot be rude to the elder. Is not it?
Someone tell my congregation members they cannot be rude to me! They seem to have missed that memo...

But I am not advocating rudeness. I am trying to say that respect is not the same as automatically going along with the other person's decisions.
If your spouse is committing one of the sins that the Scriptures say will result in that spouse not inheriting eternal life, then I think you can introduce it with this approach "Honey, I'm really concerned about....because of Scripture..." and it will still get pretty quickly to a difficult conversation.
Difficult, sure. But there's a world of difference between "difficult" and "coercive."
Regarding your two options, it seems you are promoting the notion that relating real consequences , per Scripture, equates to coercion.
No; it depends on how it's done.

Again, saying, "I'm concerned that Scipture says the consequence of abc is xyz, and I'm worried for you," is very different from attempting to use that Scripture to coerce.
So how is it mysterious?
I might have lost a thread of the discussion here, but I don't think I said anything was mysterious?
Of course it is.
I disagree. As I said, it would be very hard to read the relevant texts, and come to the conclusion that they mean exactly your position, and nothing else.

And that is not a criticism of your position! It is just pointing out that at the very least, you have selected from a range of possible positions one could describe as Scriptural.
I would say it would be much harder to read the texts and say, as you have, that they do not speak of headship, when it is referenced, of a father having responsibility for his children and his household, as they are also referenced.
I did not say that they do not speak of headship (although that is a non-Scriptural word we use to summarise a bunch of ideas about what it means for a husband/father to be "head" of the household; although I believe the term was originally coined in Reformation arguments about the role of the papacy). The "head" language is there. I'm not denying it. What I'm denying is that that sets up a hierarchy of power and control, particularly between a husband and wife.
addressing that distortion is not addressing what the text says.
I would argue that in our current situation, it is essential in addressing what the text says. Because the distortion is by far the more actively promoted view, and if you don't actively set your position apart from it, people will assume that someone arguing for "headship" is arguing for the hierarchical power/control stuff. It's been shoved down our throats since we were teenagers (if not before), how are we to know that you mean something different unless you say so?
Already mentioned, I am not Southern Baptist.
You seemed to be arguing for their position, though. At least, as preferable to the second statement.
I stated from the beginning that submittion to one another in love is commanded, and part of my view! But you see that as in opposition to spiritual roles of headship/leadership/authority. It is not.
Well, my first response to that would be that headship, leadership, and authority, are three quite different things, and function quite differently.

What I am saying is opposed to mutual submission is control. Now you are saying that you are arguing for headship (etc) to be exercised in ways which are not coercive, only persuasive. If the control (coercion) element is excluded, then mutual submission is possible.
It is rather hard to go by how clear it was to you, because when stating elements of my view all along, they still seem to have been a surprise to you in the end.
Back in post #228 I asked you about the limits of headship. It took you until post #573 to spell out that headship was supposed to be limited to persuasion rather than coercion (and even then, you only did so by agreeing with my attempt to put your position into words). Up until that point your position about the limits of headship was not at all clear, to me, at least. You seemed to either evade the point or be very vague about it.
There are pragmatic differenences in recognizing that the Christian father and husband is called to account for his whole family, and is to exercise his authority in line with God's will, encouraging them in the admonition of the Lord.
But that wouldn't see him actually doing anything differently than if he saw that responsibility as shared with his wife, would it?
We do not agree on hermeneutics.
I didn't suggest that we did. I suggested that if our application ended up looking pretty much the same, perhaps we could respect that our actual living out of Scripture was not so terrible.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,681
6,104
Visit site
✟1,045,154.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Difficult, sure. But there's a world of difference between "difficult" and "coercive."

No; it depends on how it's done.

Reading the Scriptures, and discussing what they say in warning, are not coercive.

The notion of swearing, anger, etc. that you included in that in your second example is certainly sinful. We should appeal as Galatians 6 relates, in gentleness:

Galatians 6:1 1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. (NKJV​
I might have lost a thread of the discussion here, but I don't think I said anything was mysterious?

You indicated we cannot use Eli in regards to responsibility for his children. But the text does point out he was accountable for not restraining his children when they became vile.

You indicated that accountability was not spelled out in Scripture. I said, of course it is, and posted the Scriptures.
I disagree. As I said, it would be very hard to read the relevant texts, and come to the conclusion that they mean exactly your position, and nothing else.
You then did not even address the scriptures referenced, and just made a statement that it could be interpreted different ways.

If you claim it is not in Scripture, and I point out Scriptures that say it, that is evidence. IF you then wish to indicate they do not say, you will have to address those Scriptures.

I did not say that they do not speak of headship (although that is a non-Scriptural word we use to summarise a bunch of ideas about what it means for a husband/father to be "head" of the household; although I believe the term was originally coined in Reformation arguments about the role of the papacy). The "head" language is there. I'm not denying it. What I'm denying is that that sets up a hierarchy of power and control, particularly between a husband and wife.

It says it directly in relation to the husband and wife, and in comparison to Christ and the church. No need to belabor it further as it was already pointed out numerous times:

Ephesians 5:24 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. NKJV​


addressing that distortion is not addressing what the text says.​


I would argue that in our current situation, it is essential in addressing what the text says. Because the distortion is by far the more actively promoted view, and if you don't actively set your position apart from it, people will assume that someone arguing for "headship" is arguing for the hierarchical power/control stuff. It's been shoved down our throats since we were teenagers (if not before), how are we to know that you mean something different unless you say so?

I did say so at numerous points during the thread, and tried numerous times to look at the text with you, but you stated your goal was to warn people by means of the secular science, and that you did not intend to address certain arguments.

And as to the more actively promoted view, that depends on the "circles" you are looking in.

You seemed to be arguing for their position, though. At least, as preferable to the second statement.
I am arguing for what the text says, regardless of what their statement says. The text speaks of headship and submission.

Well, my first response to that would be that headship, leadership, and authority, are three quite different things, and function quite differently.

The text indicates that there is headship and submission in the relation to Christ and the church, and in the relationship of the husband to the wife.

And of course, there is submission of the members to those who are to give account for their souls, there is yielding.

And there is even submission to the authorities. All of them have delegated authority, according to what the Lord wants, within a given sphere or scope.

What I am saying is opposed to mutual submission is control. Now you are saying that you are arguing for headship (etc) to be exercised in ways which are not coercive, only persuasive. If the control (coercion) element is excluded, then mutual submission is possible.

Back in post #228 I asked you about the limits of headship. It took you until post #573 to spell out that headship was supposed to be limited to persuasion rather than coercion (and even then, you only did so by agreeing with my attempt to put your position into words). Up until that point your position about the limits of headship was not at all clear, to me, at least. You seemed to either evade the point or be very vague about it.

I will leave it to those reading the thread to decide. But elements were spelled out throughout the thread. And the limits were referenced, and the context of delegated authority, and comparisons to the authority of church leaders, also indicated to be primarily persuasive.

But of course, we both acknowledged rare situations where someone might control another, through physical restraint, through involving legitimate authorities, whether in the context of the marriage relation, or others.

Moreover, I kept saying control was your word from the outset, and you argued only based on the definition you already had in mind of headship, despite me pointing out that you were not actually representing the view I was stating, or what the text says. The most extreme examples of course are when you continually spoke of breaking bones, etc. while admitting I ruled that out completely. But you kept returning to it anyway.

But that wouldn't see him actually doing anything differently than if he saw that responsibility as shared with his wife, would it?

In some cases, yes it might. I noted how we resolved decisions that needed to be made in my own family, where I still applied the guidance of Scripture, asked my wife if she would agree to the decision, which she did, but acted in the best interest of the whole family, in this case especially our child.

If both believe the husband will give account, then both cooperate with that responsibility held. Of course, both still have a responsibility to each other and the child, But the husband's is greater.

Just as every member of the church has a responsibility to watch out for others. But the overseer will particularly give account, and they are to cooperate with that.

I didn't suggest that we did. I suggested that if our application ended up looking pretty much the same, perhaps we could respect that our actual living out of Scripture was not so terrible.

Given I said very early on they often look quite similar, I didn't say your actual living out was "so terrible" to start with. That was what you were saying to any reference to the husband being head of the wife because it built up a three legged stoll that precedes abuse in your view. You did indicate that reference to headship resulted in living out of Scripture that was producing sinful results, but did not actually listen to what my view was prior to making that determination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValeriyK2022
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,681
6,104
Visit site
✟1,045,154.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
- Your position is also not how headship and submission are generally understood, preached, talked about, written about, in various Christian circles.

My view is certainly not novel, or unknown, etc.

I referenced Chrysostom earlier. Here are statements from his homilies on Ephesians 5 and 6 that show the same emphasis on legitimate headship, submission, but within the understanding of the scope God has set, and with the warnings about how to properly treat one's spouse, and how one manages his household, in the fourth century.


"Husbands," says he, "love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church."​
You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever — refuse it not. Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife. Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one's life, the mother of one's children, the foundation of one's every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper. For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this.​
Ver. 26. "And gave Himself up," he says, "for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it."​
So then she was unclean! So then she had blemishes, so then she was unsightly, so then she was worthless! Whatsoever kind of wife you shall take, yet shall you never take such a bride as the Church, when Christ took her, nor one so far removed from you as the Church was from Christ. And yet for all that, He did not abhor her, nor loathe her for her surpassing deformity. Would you hear her deformity described? Hear what Paul says, "For you were once darkness." Ephesians 5:8 Did you see the blackness of her hue? What blacker than darkness? But look again at her boldness, "living," says he, "in malice and envy." Titus 3:3 Look again at her impurity; "disobedient, foolish." But what am I saying? She was both foolish, and of an evil tongue; and yet notwithstanding, though so many were her blemishes, yet did He give Himself up for her in her deformity, as for one in the bloom of youth, as for one dearly beloved, as for one of wonderful beauty. And it was in admiration of this that Paul said, For scarcely for a righteous man will one die Romans 5:7; and again, "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 And though such as this, He took her, He arrayed her in beauty, and washed her, and refused not even this, to give Himself for her.​
Ver. 26, 27. "That He might sanctify it having cleansed it," he proceeds, "by the washing of water with the word; that He might present the Church to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish."​
And​
Let us wipe off the "spot" that is within, let us smooth the "wrinkles" that are within, let us do away the "blemishes" that are on the soul. Such is the beauty God requires. Let us make her fair in God's sight, not in our own.​
and​
(quoted earlier)​
"But what," one may say, "if a wife reverence me not?" Never mind, you are to love, fulfill your own duty. For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, "submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ." And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God.​
and​
Whereas to him he discourses concerning love, and commits to him this province of love, and declares to him that which pertains to love, thus binding him and cementing him to her. For the man that leaves his father for the sake of his wife, and then again, leaves this very wife herself and abandons her, what forbearance can he deserve?​
She is a second authority, possessing indeed an authority, and a considerable equality of dignity; but at the same time the husband has somewhat of superiority. In this consists most chiefly the well-being of the house. For he took that former argument, the example of Christ, to show that we ought not only to love, but also to govern; "that she may be," says he, "holy and without blemish." But the word "flesh" has reference to love— and the word "shall cleave" has in like manner reference to love. For if you shall make her "holy and without blemish," everything else will follow. Seek the things which are of God, and those which are of man will follow readily enough.​
and​
Neither, however, let the husband, when he hears these things, on the score of his having the supreme authority, betake himself to revilings and to blows; but let him exhort, let him admonish her, as being less perfect, let him persuade her with arguments. Let him never once lift his hand — far be this from a noble spirit, — no, nor give expression to insults, or taunts, or revilings; but let him regulate and direct her as being wanting in wisdom. Yet how shall this be done? If she be instructed in the true riches, in the heavenly philosophy, she will make no complaints like these.​
and​
For these reasons then, I courted you, and I love you, and prefer you to my own soul. For the present life is nothing. And I pray, and beseech, and do all I can, that we may be counted worthy so to live this present life, as that we may be able also there in the world to come to be united to one another in perfect security. For our time here is brief and fleeting. But if we shall be counted worthy by having pleased God to so exchange this life for that one, then shall we ever be both with Christ and with each other, with more abundant pleasure. I value your affection above all things, and nothing is so bitter or so painful to me, as ever to be at variance with you.​
and​
Teach her the fear of God, and all good things will flow from this as from a fountain, and the house will be full of ten thousand blessings. If we seek the things that are incorruptible, these corruptible things will follow. "For," says He, "seek first His kingdom, and all these things shall be added unto you."​
and​
If thus we regulate ourselves, and attentively study the Scriptures, in most things we shall derive instruction from them. And thus shall be able to please God, and to pass through the whole of the present life virtuously, and to attain those blessings which are promised to those that love Him, of which God grant that we may all be counted worthy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, together with the Holy Ghost, be unto the Father, glory, power, and honor, now, and ever, through all ages. Amen.​
However, having given the necessary injunctions to children, he passes to the fathers, and says,​
Ver. 4. "And ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but nurture them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord."​
He does not say, "love them," because to this nature draws them even against their own will, and it were superfluous to lay down a law on such subjects. But what does he say? "Provoke not your children to wrath," as many do by disinheriting them, and disowning them, and treating them overbearingly, not as free, but as slaves. This is why he says, "Provoke not your children to wrath." Then, which is the chief thing of all, he shows how they will be led to obedience, referring the whole source of it to the head and chief authority.​
and​
You see that where there are spiritual ties, the natural ties will follow. Do you wish your son to be obedient? From the very first "Bring him up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." Never deem it an unnecessary thing that he should be a diligent hearer of the divine Scriptures. For there the first thing he hears will be this, "Honor your father and your mother"; so that this makes for you. Never say, this is the business of monks. Am I making a monk of him? No. There is no need he should become a monk. Why be so afraid of a thing so replete with so much advantage? Make him a Christian. For it is of all things necessary for laymen to be acquainted with the lessons derived from this source; but especially for children. For theirs is an age full of folly; and to this folly are superadded the bad examples derived from the heathen tales, where they are made acquainted with those heroes so admired among them, slaves of their passions, and cowards with regard to death; as, for example, Achilles, when he relents, when he dies for his concubine, when another gets drunk, and many other things of the sort. He requires therefore the remedies against these things. How is it not absurd to send children out to trades, and to school, and to do all you can for these objects, and yet, not to "bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord"? And for this reason truly we are the first to reap the fruits, because we bring up our children to be insolent and profligate, disobedient, and mere vulgar fellows. Let us not then do this; no, let us listen to this blessed Apostle's admonition. "Let us bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." Let us give them a pattern. Let us make them from the earliest age apply themselves to the reading of the Scriptures. Alas, that so constantly as I repeat this, I am looked upon as trifling! Still, I shall not cease to do my duty.​
and​
How long are we to be mere lumps of flesh? How long are we to be stooping to the earth? Let everything be secondary with us to the provident care we should take of our children, and to our "bringing them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." If from the very first he is taught to be a lover of true wisdom, then wealth greater than all wealth has he acquired and a more imposing name. You will effect nothing so great by teaching him an art, and giving him that outward learning by which he will gain riches, as if you teach him the art of despising riches. If you desire to make him rich, do this. For the rich man is not he who desires great riches, and is encircled with great riches; but the man who has need of nothing. Discipline your son in this, teach him this. This is the greatest riches. Seek not how to give him reputation and high character in outward learning, but consider deeply how you shall teach him to despise the glory that belongs to this present life. By this means would he become more distinguished and more truly glorious. This it is possible for the poor man and the rich man alike to accomplish. These are lessons which a man does not learn from a master, nor by art, but by means of the divine oracles. Seek not how he shall enjoy a long life here, but how he shall enjoy a boundless and endless life hereafter. Give him the great things, not the little things. Hear what Paul says, "Bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord"; study not to make him an orator, but train him up to be a philosopher. In the want of the one there will be no harm whatever; in the absence of the other, all the rhetoric in the world will be of no advantage. Tempers are wanted, not talking; character, not cleverness; deeds, not words. These gain a man the kingdom. These confer what are benefits indeed. Whet not his tongue, but cleanse his soul. I do not say this to prevent your teaching him these things, but to prevent your attending to them exclusively. Do not imagine that the monk alone stands in need of these lessons from Scripture. Of all others, the children just about to enter into the world specially need them.​
and​
Let us therefore train up our children to be such, that they shall be able to bear up against every trial, and not be surprised at what may come upon them; "let us bring them up in the chastening and admonition of the Lord." And great will be the reward which will be thus laid up in store for us. For if men for making statues and painting portraits of kings enjoy so great honor, shall not we who adorn the image of the King of kings, (for man is the image of God,) receive ten thousand blessings, if we effect a true likeness? For the likeness is in this, in the virtue of the soul, when we train our children to be good, to be meek, to be forgiving, (because all these are attributes of God,) to be beneficent, to be humane; when we train them to regard the present world as nothing. Let this then be our task, to mold and to direct both ourselves and them according to what is right. Otherwise with what sort of boldness shall we stand before the judgment-seat of Christ? If a man who has unruly children is unworthy to be a Bishop Titus 1:6, much more is he unworthy of the kingdom of Heaven.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValeriyK2022
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,681
6,104
Visit site
✟1,045,154.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They're not pathological extremes. I bring up actual things I see in real life, in people claiming to be Christians, claiming that what they are doing is what Scripture requires.

Some of the things you have related are certainly pathological extremes!

When doing a Bible study I met an inmate in prison 20+ years ago who claimed to be one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11, and to be fulfilling those Scriptures. But no one, after examining his claims, was under the impression he was actually applying the text correctly, or was one of the two witnesses of Revelation, despite his claims.

Someone beating his wife, breaking her bones, raping her, and limiting her every move is clearly not in line with the text saying to love your wife as Christ loves the church, and to give yourself up for her, regardless of what they claim. And this was pointed out repeatedly.

There are real people with completely distorted interpretations of Scripture, who are deluded. And their existence does not say anything about the actual message of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,837
20,102
45
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,706,573.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Reading the Scriptures, and discussing what they say in warning, are not coercive.
There's discussion and discussion. Discussion can be coercive.

I think the fundamental difference is this. It's one thing to make an appeal to another, but relinquish any attempt to control how they respond. It's another thing to, in any way, attempt to control their response.
You indicated we cannot use Eli in regards to responsibility for his children.
That's really not what I said. What I was trying to get at, was that we can't draw on Eli in a simplistic way to decide how we should act now.
It says it directly in relation to the husband and wife,
It does not say directly that a husband must control his wife. Nor would saying that a husband must control his wife, be compatible with a view that headship is persuasive, not coercive.
I did say so at numerous points during the thread,
Even now your position seems to be to want to retain a level of ambiguity, such as the above point where you seem to be back to arguing for control as necessary in headship.
But you kept returning to it anyway.
Of course I did. Because that's where this headship-as-control stuff ends up, even if the people promoting it would like to see it stop short of that. It provides the justification and entitlement to men who feel that they have a God-given right to enforce their will, by any means available.
In some cases, yes it might. I noted how we resolved decisions that needed to be made in my own family, where I still applied the guidance of Scripture, asked my wife if she would agree to the decision, which she did, but acted in the best interest of the whole family, in this case especially our child.
And how is that different to how you would have acted, if you believed that accountability and authority in the household were shared with your wife?
If both believe the husband will give account, then both cooperate with that responsibility held.
I think it's not that egalitarians would say that husbands won't give an account, but that we think that wives/mothers will share in that accountability also. We're not off the hook for the part we play in the leadership of the household.
That was what you were saying to any reference to the husband being head of the wife because it built up a three legged stoll that precedes abuse in your view.
Not exactly. I was saying that anything which was used to argue for a relationship of hierarchy, power and control provides the underpinning of abuse.

Now you tell me that headship, in your view, is not that; which is great. But I am saying then, it is really important to make that clear. Because "headship" as it is generally talked about in Christian circles absolutely is a relationship of hierarchy, power and control.
My view is certainly not novel, or unknown, etc.
It is not how "headship" has ever been explained, in any church or small group I have attended, book or blog I have read, or other Christian resource I have ever come across (and I have encountered a variety). It may not be novel to you, but it is not the general take on "headship."
Some of the things you have related are certainly pathological extremes!
Pathological, yes, but far too common to be extreme. They are mainstream applications of headship theology.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.