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

[ValeriyK2022]

I have looked, and I'll just note that what I found did not match your claims at all. Academic sources cite high rates of male violence against women in the USSR

I explained the mechanism above. 1. Men in USSR never complained about abuse by wife to those bodies that record statistics. 2. It is psychological and therefore difficult to prove. 3. When a woman goes into conflict and a man has 2 options: to submit to his own wife or to submit to a representative of the authorities, a man in the USSR chose to submit to his own wife.

That is, first, each side chose a strategy of competition for power (in the words of Stephen Covey, “win/lose”). If a man lost, he either went into a career, or service to the state, or became an alcoholic. If he became an alcoholic, his personality changed and his state of negative emotions grew. A person who loses and gives in all the time eventually breaks down. And since he was already inclined to drink alcohol, then what happened was what was already recorded by government statistics.

But government statistics did not record absolutely the period of time from the moment of the wedding to the moment when the husband became an alcoholic.

 

[Paidiske]

A person who loses and gives in all the time eventually breaks down.

And yet this is what so many Christians expect women to do.

 

[bèlla]

All abuse is wrong regardless of the perpetrator. Emphasizing one population over the other is splitting hairs and isn't how the subject is generally viewed by laymen. They recognize the behavior is bad and denounce its occurrence. Whether they're male or female is immaterial.

No one speaks that way as a norm and it's commonly found in circles where gender is the subject. But outside of those confines you're unlikely to hear it. Professionals notwithstanding of course.

I know someone on the other side of the aisle who does the same. He addresses gender too but his focus is men and there's a noticeable bias in his remarks because he's championing his own. When that's the case you don't realize how it sounds to others. That doesn't mean your intentions are ill. But the bubble has consequences.

And I challenge him too because some things are wrong and others are out of bounds and should be addressed. I'm the only one who will because he's in an echo chamber and the others agree. Since he has the most influence he could lead them astray that's why I intervene.

But in light of his position I see a lot of things I wouldn't encounter otherwise. He's been talking about this for years well before it was popular. There's wrong on both sides but we're catching up. Before you reach abuse there's a mindset, attitude, heart condition and behaviors that testify to the truth that you have a problem. Most affliction perpetuated by women is going to be mental or emotional because of the size difference or financial if she can pull it off.

If you're constantly defending a perspective you're going to be unbalanced eventually. It's a natural occurrence of the practice. And the remedy is the other who helps you recognize your blindspots and you do the same as well. That's how you grow.

I've learned a lot from him and don't agree with everything he says. But I've learned nonetheless because it challenged me and helped me see things I missed or never considered. Movement is difficult when identity's involved. Once you embrace a label you must see yourself through that context and uphold its presence. And you'll push against anything that threatens it.

The solution is relinquishment.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

Both statements in the OP are correct.

ETA: Edited for privacy.


~bella

 

[ValeriyK2022]

And yet this is what so many Christians expect women to do.

No, that's not right. In the case of constant “losses,” the wife will accumulate irritability and resentment, and this will end either in a scandalous outburst of emotions or in a quiet protest. It should not be.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Both statements in the OP are correct.

I view submission holistically. It's a reflection of the mind, heart, spirit, flesh, environment, associations, and example. All of these things contribute to its expression to some degree. The more positive experiences and outflows we have in those areas the greater the likelihood our reception will be favorable. Condition sets the tone. Whether we're working towards its embrace or fighting against it is dependent on the other.

The debate isn't about the word. God's infallible. The problem is what lies within us that's a hindrance. What is preventing us from obeying or compelling us to view it differently? That's the struggle. We must be willing to acknowledge when we're leaning in or feeling resistance and articulate the root.

It doesn't mean we solve the problem immediately but we're admitting an issue exists. When we refrain to take this course and allow the lesser regions of ourselves to have sway we may convince ourselves nothing's amiss or welcome alternatives that support our comfort zone.

We can't broach the subject with rigidity because no two are the same. Their mutual conditions may work to their benefit or not. To expect one on the challenging side to mirror the response of the favorable end may be unrealistic. It doesn't mean she won't get there but their starting points are different. If the spouse begins where she is and assists her in addressing the impediments her expression will improve.

And we don't want to fall into comparisons or mirroring another's idea of what it implies. It looks different in every home. If we're working together we're seeking the answers collectively and you is the focus. How can I pray, bless, or assist you? And it's not an assignment or drudgery. It's our expression to the other.

For some it will be more demonstrative than the next. Some may be more reminiscent of the 1950s and another resembles a CEO/COO relationship but both are submission. We must bear in mind that men want different things. Some men want equity and if that's the case she doesn't usurp his position and turn herself into a trad wife. You work within the parameters of the circumstances and handle the rest in prayer and let the Lord intervene.

A wise person understands their nature and chooses a spouse with that in mind. It's harder to fix a problem than avoiding its occurrence. Some of the challenges around this subject are related to that. You look for these qualities upfront not later. That isn't possible if you haven't defined it. You begin with the scripture and follow with the natural. What does that look like in action to you? Then it won't be difficult to detect.

Through [skillful and godly] wisdom a house [a life, a home, a family] is built. And by understanding it is established [on a sound and good foundation]. And by knowledge its rooms are filled With all precious and pleasant riches.

~bella

This is right: get to know yourself and look for a partner to approach you, and then try to understand the other and solve problems together.



But what prevents this?

1. Many people cannot understand themselves for decades. And in their youth, even more so, they do not understand themselves correctly. The girl pictured an ideal man in her imagination, attributed this to her fiancé and promises to obey like the Church of Christ. But as Nina Krygina says, in 99% of cases, shortcomings are discovered in the other person that were invisible if you did not live together. And if the girl decided and promised that she would obey, but deceived herself, then she will cancel her decision. She thought that she would do this because she would listen to the command of the New Testament, but then she says: my husband is not as holy as I imagined him to be, so I cancel my decision. Initially, there was an unconscious mistake: to submit not for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the qualities of the future husband. Also, the husband may encounter something that he did not see in his parental family and not know what to do about it. The relationship is not like that of his parents and he has no instructions on how to behave. While he was overwhelmed by passion and the bride did not know his sore spots, he thought that he would easily bear insults according to the Savior’s words “if she hit you on the cheek, turn the other one.” But later the bride used empathy to hit the most painful places and after that, not only turning the other cheek, it’s even difficult to discuss all this.
2. Inability to listen to others. It often seems that what pleases one person should also please the other. For example, today I heard such prejudice that a man chooses a wife who looks like his mother. But when the wife begins to behave like a mother (someone advised that her husband would like it that way), the husband considers himself deeply offended that he has been humiliated to the level of a child. Professor Nina Krygina also talks about this in the video above. In fact, the wife should try to understand her husband, what will please him, and not listen to the advice of smart psychologists, what pleases them and transfer this to her husband. In the same way, a husband should listen to and understand his wife, which makes her happy.

Her husband, for example, likes camping on the lake. And she likes to relax in a comfortable hotel room. She gives in, goes camping with him and is sad and whining all the time in the tent and thereby spoils her husband’s mood or even gets angry. She might even reprimand her husband: I went through such difficulties for you, but you don’t appreciate it. You scoundrel! I don't love you anymore! The holiday is ruined. At the same time, she could want to appear virtuous and hide from her husband that she does not like camping, and say: the main thing for me is that you spend these days the way you want, this will already make me happy. But she didn’t recognize herself, overestimated her strength and lost control. In the same way, a husband should not believe his wife’s words that she only enjoys what her husband wants. He should have first listened to my wife about what her ideal vacation would be. And as an option that suits both, you could choose a hotel on the shore of a lake or sea, rather than a campsite. Inside the hotel room there is comfort for the wife, and outside there is nature for the husband.

Problems: 1) no sincerity with oneself; 2) at first they did not try to understand what would please the other person.

 

[tall73]

I posted that only because it provided a statement that rates of abuse were lower in egalitarian households then complementarian ones. (Most data sources don't break it down that way, so it was hard to find, say, government stats on that).

Wait, are you saying you have not read the literature, the actual studies?

I am pressed for time at the moment but will post one for us to look at that highlights the problem you are speaking of, using nation level data when I can.

 

[Paidiske]

Wait, are you saying you have not read the literature, the actual studies?

I have, but I don't have access to them online to share. Most of the actual studies I've seen I actually had in hard copy. (Back from when I was first involved in primary prevention work).

 

[Paleouss]

Good essay on the topic, I think.

The Commision of Submission: Submission in Marriage

 

[tall73]

I have, but I don't have access to them online to share. Most of the actual studies I've seen I actually had in hard copy. (Back from when I was first involved in primary prevention work).

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00013-3/fulltext

This study takes a look at data from 44 nations. In more wealthy countries where female ownership of property is higher, and gender norms less harsh, there is less abuse.

They cite in the introduction earlier research that shows that the effect was not seen that same manner in the US:

Efforts from US researchers to test the feminist hypothesis on the importance of gender norms and hierarchies at a state level have yielded equivocal results, leading many academics to argue that gender plays a minor part in the cause of abuse.​

This is in line with the study I posted in the early post, that in the 11 countries measured there was no statistically significant difference between egalitarian and patriarchal households in reported abuse incidence, with the largest sample coming from the US. (Though significantly for your own experience they found more of the effect at the country level in Australia).

The takeaway from this study is that in countries with very harsh gender norms and attitudes on abuse, more abuse happens. Given that one of the measures is that more than 48 percent of the people in a country approve of beating your wife--often including the women themselves--it is not surprising that this is the case. But they note that in more developed countries the effect is not the same.

I am not convinced that I need to stop discussing what Ephesians 5 says in our studies of books of the Bible in the US, as we don't have this type of widespread sanction of wife-beating in our culture. That is not to say that individuals do not at times manifest this view. But the culture is not reinforcing it, therefore we don't see that same effect here.

And more to the point, Ephesians 5 encourages following the example of Christ, and says to love your wife as your own body, and to give your life for her. That is not sanctioning abuse in any way.

My message is the opposite of those who openly sanction beating of wives. Nor does my culture sanction such. We need to tell more people about the example of Jesus, and about living in the Spirit, producing its fruit so that we are not doing the works of the flesh.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not convinced that I need to stop discussing what Ephesians 5 says

But that was never my argument. Quite the contrary; we need to discuss it, because it is there, and it is part of Scripture, and it needs to be integrated into a healthy overall theology and praxis.

My argument was about how we discuss it. Do we do so in a manner that reinforces gender hierarchy, dynamics of power and control, and rigid roles? Or do we do so in a way that promotes healthy mutual respect, service, and love?

 

[tall73]

Tall73 said:​

I am not convinced that I need to stop discussing what Ephesians 5 says in our studies of books of the Bible in the US, as we don't have this type of widespread sanction of wife-beating in our culture. That is not to say that individuals do not at times manifest this view. But the culture is not reinforcing it, therefore we don't see that same effect here.​

​

And more to the point, Ephesians 5 encourages following the example of Christ, and says to love your wife as your own body, and to give your life for her. That is not sanctioning abuse in any way.​

​

My message is the opposite of those who openly sanction beating of wives. Nor does my culture sanction such. We need to tell more people about the example of Jesus, and about living in the Spirit, producing its fruit so that we are not doing the works of the flesh.​

But that was never my argument. Quite the contrary; we need to discuss it, because it is there, and it is part of Scripture, and it needs to be integrated into a healthy overall theology and praxis.

My argument was about how we discuss it. Do we do so in a manner that reinforces gender hierarchy, dynamics of power and control, and rigid roles? Or do we do so in a way that promotes healthy mutual respect, service, and love?

You said:

I am saying that "soft" complementarians provide an environment in which abusive complementarians are at best unchallenged, and at worst encouraged, in their underlying views. That all the talk about headship, hierarchy, authority, submission, and so on, if not put forward in a way which deliberately strips it of all abusive potential, contributes to a wider social discourse in which abusive attitudes and behaviours are normalised.

And yet, when I directly say that the text is against any abuse, that giving yourself for your spouse as Christ did for the church, loving her as you do your own body, etc. is the opposite of abuse, and rules it out, you say that has no meaning because some unstable person distorts the text and says that beating your wife is what Christ would do.

No, I have said over and over that abuse is ruled out by the text. And you still smear me with these notions that me saying the husband is head, in imitation of Christ, and is to love his wife as Christ loved the church is to encourage abusers. That is absurd.

The text does speak of submission. The text does speak of the husband being head. And that headship is lived out in imitation of Christ, who did NOT teach us to micromanage and beat our wives.

There is no support for the views spelled out in that report, of people saying it is ok to beat your spouse, from any of my statements.

So no, again, my view does not promote what is measured in those surveys.

I say do not beat your spouse. The people in those surveys say it is fine to beat your spouse.

Those are OPPOSITES.

 

[Paidiske]

And yet, when I directly say that the text is against any abuse, that giving yourself for your spouse as Christ did for the church, loving her as you do your own body, etc. is the opposite of abuse, and rules it out, you say that has no meaning because some unstable person distorts the text and says that beating your wife is what Christ would do.

That's really not quite what I'm saying.

What I'm trying to say is that if we talk about things like headship, submission, leadership, authority (etc) in ways which reinforce ideas of household hierarchy, dynamics of power and control, rigid roles, and so on, that drives the attitudes which underlie abuse, even if we are simultaneously saying that the text is against any abuse.

Partly because if - for example - a man believes he has a God-given right to control his wife, he won't see that as abuse. He won't recognise the problem with what he's doing.

And you still smear me with these notions

I am really not smearing you. This is not about you.

 

[tall73]

This is not about you.

Then you can clarify. You don't think my statements in the thread fall in this category?

​

Paidiske said:​

​

I am saying that "soft" complementarians provide an environment in which abusive complementarians are at best unchallenged, and at worst encouraged, in their underlying views.​

​

 

[Paidiske]

Then you can clarify. You don't think my statements in the thread fall in this category?

This conversation is much bigger than anyone's statements in this thread, and I am not making it about statements in this thread.

 

[bèlla]

This is right: get to know yourself and look for a partner to approach you, and then try to understand the other and solve problems together.

Thank you for the compliment. In all the years I've written about the subject that's the loveliest thing I've composed. When I reached its end I was amazed by what emerged from my spirit. Although I'm not married I understand the principle. And it was evident to me that I'm ready to be a wife. Not because I believe so. But because the work is done. God is good. I'm going to give it to someone special.

But what prevents this?

1. Many people cannot understand themselves for decades. And in their youth, even more so, they do not understand themselves correctly.

This is the crux of the problem. If you don't know who you are you don't what you need.

Initially, there was an unconscious mistake: to submit not for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the qualities of the future husband.

This is humbling to read.

2. Inability to listen to others. It often seems that what pleases one person should also please the other. For example, today I heard such prejudice that a man chooses a wife who looks like his mother. But when the wife begins to behave like a mother (someone advised that her husband would like it that way), the husband considers himself deeply offended that he has been humiliated to the level of a child.

The analogy about cooks rings true.

Professor Nina Krygina also talks about this in the video above. In fact, the wife should try to understand her husband, what will please him, and not listen to the advice of smart psychologists, what pleases them and transfer this to her husband. In the same way, a husband should listen to and understand his wife, which makes her happy.

What we take in will inevitably find its way to the other. This was one of my most important lessons many years ago. When I stopped listening to my friends and seeking their input. I developed the ability to keep my own counsel. They were well meaning and equally clueless. Now it's the blind leading the blind to our detriment.

The second part of that lesson came later on. It was the necessity of developing bonds with godly women who possessed the marriage I sought and embodied the qualities I wanted to possess. And that changed everything. Now the things I hear and see honor Him and the other and the iron is good.

But she didn’t recognize herself, overestimated her strength and lost control.

I've long held that arguments are counterproductive to healthy connections. Losing control with your spouse while holding yourself in check with other persons in authority is an abomination. They should have your first allegiance. If you won't do the same to your boss, the police, the judge, or another you hold in regard. Why would you do it to them?

Problems: 1) no sincerity with oneself; 2) at first they did not try to understand what would please the other person.

When I was contemplating suitors the barometer for selection was their alignment with my purpose and my suitability for theirs. God isn't the author of confusion. He won't unite me with a gentleman who opposes the work He's called me to. Nor would He give him a companion ill-suited for his mission and its accomplishment. There must be harmony.

Putting that front and center put the rest in its proper context. If they didn't tick that box the others didn't matter. And the kingdom is first and I wouldn't compromise. I didn't simply take his word for that. I put it to the test. Because everybody has a threshold. I knew where I stood and needed to make certain he was in the same sphere.

~bella

 

[tall73]

This conversation is much bigger than anyone's statements in this thread, and I am not making it about statements in this thread.

If I said that Australian, Anglican, Egalitarian, female priests downplay abuse against men, and then said it is not personal, would you believe that?

You have talked about soft complementarians who discuss submission, headship, etc. supporting abuse by others, and it is not to be taken as personal?

 

[tall73]

This conversation is much bigger than anyone's statements in this thread, and I am not making it about statements in this thread.

Of course you are. You wouldn't even share your biblical view, which you claim is revolutionary, and corrects the view of the church for 2,000 years because you said I was not respectful enough to you.

 

[Paidiske]

If I said that Australian, Anglican, Egalitarian, female priests downplay abuse against men, and then said it is not personal, would you believe that?

But I am not saying anything like that. I am talking about Christian discourse that is much wider than any one country, denomination, theology, or gender. And I am not aiming my remarks at any person in particular.

We cannot address problems if we cannot name them. That is not an attack on people.

 

[tall73]

And I am not aiming my remarks at any person in particular.

If you aim your remarks at a group, you are including the people in the group.

Paidiske said:
I am saying that "soft" complementarians provide an environment in which abusive complementarians are at best unchallenged, and at worst encouraged, in their underlying views.