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

[tall73]

Scripture is also...

‭Ephesians 5:21
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Of course it is. Because that is what Jesus, the Head did. And it is what He calls on the husband to do as head of the wife.

If Jesus could be a Servant as the head, which He was, then the husband can too, and he is called upon to do so.

Just as a parent has authority over their child, but still looks out for the interests of the child, gives themself up for the child. They are still the parent when doing so.

Headship is not in conflict with mutual submission. Both are in the text.

 

[Rose_bud]

Of course it is. Because that is what Jesus, the head did. And it is what He calls on the husband to do as head of the wife.

If Jesus could be a Servant as the head, which He was, then the husband can too, and he is called upon to do so.

Just as a parent has authority over their child, but still looks out for the interests of the child, gives themself up for the child. They are still the parent when doing so.

Headship is not in conflict with submission. Both are in the text.

It did not appear that way in the previous post.
But nonetheless am still waiting for how you practice the headship role? Do you have the final say in the marriage when you reach a deadlock? One poster indicated that is how it is practiced? Is this your understanding as well?

 

[tall73]

It did not appear that way in the previous posts.

I have consistently said the husband practices mutual submission. I have said I believe in mutual submission. And it is the submission patterned after Christ.

As you spelled out, referring to the text I cited earlier, Philippians 2, Jesus took on the nature of a servant.

But Jesus is the Head. Those actions are not out of line with Headship, and we are called upon to follow that.

You indicated the text was subverting Roman headship of the father. It does address headship, and the culture of the time indicated that the father is the head of the family, as you note.

But the text does not subvert the headship of the husband. It does not say he must not be head.

The text argues for headship, on the pattern of Jesus. Jesus is Head. He did not need to renounce headship to serve. He did undoubtedly serve, and accepted the limitations of a body, was tempted, was hungry, was tired, was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and humbled Himself even to death on a cross. But He did so as Head, and the husband is called to follow as head. Not because the Romans said so. Because Jesus, Peter, Paul, etc. were all quite willing to break with the Romans, or the Jews, etc. regarding cultural beliefs. But because, as the text indicates, Jesus is Head, and the husband, as head of the wife, is to follow His example.

 

[Rose_bud]

I have consistently said the husband practices mutual submission. I have said I believe in mutual submission. And it is the submission patterned after Christ.

I do believe I've argued for this view scripturally. I am not going to do so again. We have different views of mutual submission.
But nonetheless.

How do you practice headship. Is it the same as the poster who indicated he has the final say?

 

[tall73]

But nonetheless am still waiting for how you practice the headship role? Do you have the final say in the marriage when you reach a deadlock? One poster indicated that is how it is practiced? Is this your understanding as well?

Yes, I have been catching up on addressing the various arguments in the thread, making sure we are on the same page as to what mutual submission means, and I still have to talk about roles, which was my next step, and then talk about application.

I am not trying to be unresponsive. However, I am trying to address all the arguments. When I did address the creation account arguments, I found it then necessary to circle back to an earlier step because you indicated that you do not think we agree on mutual submission, etc.

But to be more precise, I think the disagreement we have is whether someone who is head can practice mutual submission. And the text answers that.

But the short answer is:

Does Jesus ever make a decision that we should follow, doing so with our own good in mind?

Does a parent ever make a decision that we should follow, doing so with the Lord's will in mind, and the good of the child?

The relation of God to Adam and Eve was not about forced submission. Sin was the start of the problem.

I did already discuss some practice earlier in the thread. And I did outline that around four or so times I did, after no other avenue was available to resolve pressing issues, ask if she would agree to what I asked. And she did, and there is no resentment from that. In some of the cases I granted her side of the issue, because it affected her more, and so I submitted.

In the only case that we even remember now many of the aspects of the decision, I did not do so. But it was not because it was my desire or her desire to do what we decided to do, but because it was, in the end, more safe for our child to do so. Even if it meant considerable inconvenience for both of us, I decided that the safety of our child should come first, because there was a real danger, though we were disagreed on the extent. And I do not think that was just insisting on my way either, but looking out for the interest of the child. It was not opposed to mutual submission.

These issues were not present in the garden, without sin. Headship is not ultimately about conflict resolution, because God was undoubtedly Head in the garden, before sin or conflict was present.

 

[tall73]

How do you practice headship. Is it the same as the poster who indicated he has the final say?

How do you relate to the Headship of Christ? Does He get the final say?

 

[tall73]

I do believe I've argued for this view scripturally. I am not going to do so again. We have different views of mutual submission.

Now, perhaps you will do what @Paidiske did not do when I asked, and spell out how you practice mutual submission. She referred me to books.

Because, I find the issue is not so much how my wife and I resolve conflict that we sit down and discuss through, which we regularly do, or even when we reach a decision we cannot resolve through the usual means, but the larger issue is when we are not walking in the Spirit and respond in harshness through the flesh. And I have seen no solution to that in either complementarian or egalitarian homes, other than walking in the Spirit, and being directed by Jesus the Head.

 

[Rose_bud]

Now, perhaps you will do what @Paidiske did not do when I asked, and spell out how you practice mutual submission. She referred me to books.

Because, I find the issue is not so much how my wife and I resolve conflict that we sit down and discuss through, which we regularly do, or even when we reach a decision we cannot resolve through the usual means, but the larger issue is when we are not walking in the Spirit and respond in harshness through the flesh. And I have seen no solution to that in either complementarian or egalitarian homes, other than walking in the Spirit, and being directed by Jesus the Head.

Thank you, for your response. From your post, I'm going to infer that you do have the final say in your marriage.

You are correct in my egalitarian marriage, their is no headship where the husband rule or have the last word or dictate to the wife. We both submit one to another in the Lord. When it comes to deadlocks, it is similar to how Baptist practice the 3 principles of the Lordship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers and the congregational principles, but this time between the family instead of the congregation.

 

[Rose_bud]

How do you relate to the Headship of Christ? Does He get the final say?

Yes he does. For example should the decision of moving to a new home be the cause of the deadlock. I want to move to Y, husband wants to move to X.

Because Christ is Lord of our lives and home. He has the final say. If we don't agree, we communicate our concerns pray that God either help us to see where we are not in agreement with the other party. We prayerfully wait, until we are on the same page. In this way we have both trusted God to reveal His will. No one is making decisions without the other. Much like when God revealed to Abraham and Sarah. He will either tell him, your wife is correct. Or tell me your husband is correct. It takes a lot more waiting, trusting and yielding. Obviously for minor things we trust in the capabilities of the other. For example my husband is an accountant, he administrates our finances. But should that have been my skill I would have done this. Each home is different, but their is a way to yield without one party dictating to the next.

 

[tall73]

Thank you, for your response. From your post, I'm going to infer that you do have the final say in your marriage.

You are correct in my egalitarian marriage, their is no headship where the husband rule or have the last word or dictate to the wife. We both submit one to another in the Lord. When it comes to deadlocks, it is similar to how Baptist practice the 3 principles of the Lordship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers and the congregational principles, but this time between the family instead of the congregation.

Ok, now give practical examples. If you have an issue that you both strongly disagree on, but have to actually decide, what do you do?

I mentioned earlier, I have never ordered my wife to do anything, and she agreed.

I have requested on a few decisions that she agree to my resolution and she agreed to do so. Because endless back and forth with no resolution is not good. Nor did I wind up insisting on my way in each of those instances, because I granted her way in some.

And even the one where I decided to go with my suggestion, it was not for my sake.

I would very much not like to be in such conflict resolution in the first place. But in a sinful world--and we are still in one--there are times a decision has to be made. They should be made looking to what Christ says, because He is the Head of the church.

 

[Rose_bud]

Ok, now give practical examples. If you have an issue that you both strongly disagree on, but have to actually decide, what do you do?

I mentioned earlier, I have never ordered my wife to do anything, and she agreed.

I have requested on a few decisions that she agree to my resolution and she agreed to do so. Because endless back and forth with no resolution is not good. Nor did I wind up insisting on my way in each of those instances, because I granted her way in some.

And even the one where I decided to go with my suggestion, it was not for my sake.

I would very much not like to be in such conflict resolution in the first place. But in a sinful world--and we are still in one--there are times a decision has to be made. They should be made looking to what Christ says, because He is the Head of the church.

See my post above.

 

[tall73]

Yes he does. For example should the decision of moving to a new home be the cause of the deadlock. I want to move to Y, husband wants to move to X.

Because Christ is Lord of our lives and home. He has the final say. If we don't agree, we communicate our concerns pray that God either help us to see where we are not in agreement with the other party. We prayerfully wait, until we are on the same page. In this way we have both trusted God to reveal His will. No one is making decisions without the other.

We have prayed for God's will as well, and He has answered. But in some situations, to not decide is to decide.

And God already gave direction on this point. You don't need to wonder if headship is correct, because the text says it is.

In the few instances, she did agree to do it, and has not resented it. If Christ is the Head, who has given the gifts for the church, then when He inspires how you should proceed, you don't need to wonder if that is how to proceed. And He said the husband is the head of the wife. We don't have an issue with that. But I also don't take that to mean that I should do whatever I feel like, but that I must give account to God on what I do in regard to that role.

Much like when God revealed to Abraham and Sarah. He will either tell him, your wife is correct. Or tell me your husband is correct. It takes a lot more trusting and yielding. Obviously for minor things we trust in the capabilities of the other.

And we have done so, and acted on such. And we have had times where waiting was not an option. Was it sin for me to follow what the Scriptures say? I do not set aside God's arrangement, or think it is sin to follow it.

The case you speak of, in regards to sending away Hagar and Ishmael, I addressed in the thread earlier.

God told Abraham that it was His will that this happen, so listen to Sarah. He didn't take issue with Abraham being head of his wife, and Peter testifies by the Spirit that He was. But God is Head over him, and Abraham, as much as it hurt to do so, did trust what God said, took the advice of his wife, and sent away his son, in obedience to the Lord.

The whole situation was brought about by their unwillingness to trust in the first place. When Sarah suggested he take her maidservant, they were not believing the answer already given.

God already gave an answer on this as well. I am believing it. And when He wishes to overrule me, He has every right, and I must obey.

For example my husband is an accountant, he administrates our finances. But should that have been my skill I would have done this. Each home is different, but their is a way to yield without one party dictating to the next.

And yet, I have said I do not command her. My wife does the accounting as well. She is in charge of a number of things, and why would she not be? I don't dictate how she spends her time, or what she can do. And I would be foolish to prevent her doing what she is good at.

 

[tall73]

Because Christ is Lord of our lives and home. He has the final say.

Then why do you make an exception when He says this, through the Spirit, through a NT apostle, on the very subject of how the relation of husbands and wives works?

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)​

 

[Rose_bud]

Thank you for this engagement @tall73. I believe we have both said what we wanted to say.

I am content to let this discussion rest for now. It is going back and forth with no consensus. We have reached a deadlock. And this is the stage where I will follow my example of how we resolve deadlocks in my home. We prayerfully trust, wait and yield to the Spirit.

I would have loved to continue on this thread with the approach that I indicated at first. Relooking at this has indeed been refreshing. I may do so on another thread which does not require debate, but rather provide a full presentation so others are provided with a different perspective to what they have been taught as I have, so that they may follow their own conscience in how they engage their relationships.

 

[tall73]

Thank you for your engagement @tall73. I believe we have both said what we wanted to say.

I am content to let this discussion rest for now. It is going back and forth with no consensus. We have reached a deadlock. And this is the stage where I will follow my example of how we resolve deadlocks in my home. We prayerfully trust, wait and yield.

I would have loved to continue on this thread with the approach that I indicated at first. Relooking at this has indeed been refreshing. I may do so on another thread which does not require debate or discussion, but rather for others to be provided with a different perspective to what they have been taught so that they may follow their own conscience in how they engage their relationships.

Thank you as well for being willing to spell out your view from Scripture. I would like to know your views on the Corinthians passages, 1 Timothy 2, etc., but I understand if you do not wish to post them here.

In the egalitarian section you could post the whole study, without debate, adding to what you have already stated. If you do, please link me to it. Those passage in particular are ones I am re-thinking. And while we both did not come to agreement, I do concur that it has been good to study the Scriptures on these points.

I will continue on to look at roles, address arguments that I have not yet done so, and engage with those who wish. If you have already posted something, I may still respond to it, but it is up to you whether you reply.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Because the text says it.

the point is 2 fold. the text says there are other models as well like, servanthood, but you do not insist on that model, you do not insist on the law being followed even though God says "If you break my laws a woman shall rule over you." you do not insist on those model, they are optional with you. you insist that you dominate without looking out for the well-being of the other person. "Love the Lord with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself" All of God's commands hang on these. That does not come across in what you say. Christ's command to "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" is optional in your model, "Do good to the body of Christ As much as possible" Those are not exhortations, those are common, but you seem to deny that is the core. The character of God and the Character of the person is crucial here. you ignore that.

I have repeatedly noted what the text says, that the man, who is head of the wife, is to follow the example of Christ, who is the the head of the church, in Christ's example of service.

again the honor system. this is a problem. "Thou shalt not have any other God's before me" which includes humans. You are advocating that men are gods on earth and have absolute power. you are not advocating for obedience to God's law you are advocating for obedience to men who are stand in's for God.

I am saying Christ is the head of the church, and I don't think this is a disagreement among us. Do you not think the repeated texts about Christ being the head of the church are accurate?

I have never been in disagreement to that. so your point is what.

If you do think they are accurate, then your issue is not with headship. And so your objection to the text speaking of headship needs to be reconsidered in light of the text.

The issue is you are advocating for slavery and ablsote power by men, no one else matters in this view. I am sorry i will never advocate for that type of leadership, and I will oppose you, because I know whom I am speaking to.

 

[tall73]

the point is 2 fold. the text says there are other models as well like, servanthood

Headship and servanthood are not two different models in the text. It is Christ, the Head, who shows what servant leadership looks like. And then he says the husband should do the same, as head of the wife.

Ephesians 5:22-28 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. (NKJV)​

You have not addressed that.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

On what to do in case of a deadlock, we had a (male, Christian) marriage and family therapist explain how it's done in his house. An idea needs to have two yes votes in order to proceed. They don't do it unless both agree. A no vote, from either him or his wife, will block it.

In our house, the problem with that method is, I'm more flexible than my husband is. He assures me I have the right to say no if I don't want to do something, but honestly, I usually don't care. I am more likely to be neutral about an issue, and go along with him, than he is to go along with me. This means that the chances are far greater that his no vote will block something I want to do, rather than my no vote blocking something he wants to do. In practice, it looks to me as if he gets what he wants when he wants it, while I may or may not get what I want. Which I do sometimes resent. But over time he is becoming more flexible, and less likely to overrule me with a no. Maybe he sees it too.

I don't know if Ananias and Sapphira have been brought up in this thread. Acts 5:1-11. They were struck dead, not for holding back part of their money, but for lying about it. As Peter pointed out, they sold their land by their own choice, the money was theirs, and they would have had the perfect right to keep as much of it for themselves as they wanted to. Their capital offense was hypocrisy, pretending to give their all when they actually hadn't. Is Sapphira an extreme example of submission? Did she go along with her husband's lie, and it cost her life? Or did she originate the idea to lie, and he agreed to it, and it cost him his life? If Ananias had commanded his wife to lie, would she have been wrong not to? I have my ideas about that, but I'd like to hear from others first.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

​

I have repeatedly noted what the text says, that the man, who is head of the wife, is to follow the example of Christ, who is the the head of the church, in Christ's example of service.​

again the honor system. this is a problem. "Thou shalt not have any other God's before me" which includes humans.

A husband is not a god. But a husband is said to be head, under the leadership of Christ who is the head of the church.

A parent is not a god either, but is supposed to have authority under the leadership of Christ.

And you speak of the honor system. But I didn't say that. I said God holds to account all people in responsibility. He judges kings, he judges overseers, he judges teachers, he judges parents, and he judges husbands. Any authority is delegated authority, and is to be used in line with His will.

I already cited Peter in this regard:

​

1 Peter 3:7 7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.​

​

Prayers are hindered by dishonoring the wife who is also an heir together of life.

Here is another text where God refuses to receive the offerings of those who have broken faith with their wife:

Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this is the second thing you do:​

You cover the altar of the LORD with tears,​

With weeping and crying;​

So He does not regard the offering anymore,​

Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.​

14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”​

Because the LORD has been witness​

Between you and the wife of your youth,​

With whom you have dealt treacherously;​

Yet she is your companion​

And your wife by covenant.​

15 But did He not make them one,​

Having a remnant of the Spirit?​

And why one?​

He seeks godly offspring.​

Therefore take heed to your spirit,​

And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.​

16 “For the LORD God of Israel says​

That He hates divorce,​

For it covers one’s garment with violence,”​

Says the LORD of hosts.​

“Therefore take heed to your spirit,​

That you do not deal treacherously.” (NKJV)​

​

I have also spoken in the thread about instances where the church should rebuke a husband.

I have also spoken in the thread about how authorities, who do not bear the sword in vain, have legitimate authority over husbands when they violate the law by abusing.

And what do you offer? You say I am advocating "magic".

so again it assumes miracles and magic, hope, and pray that God will come to the rescue. while ignoring the violation and the abuse.

No, I am saying that if a Christian hears the Lord, He will understand He is accountable to the Lord. If the passage says to love as Christ loves, then that doesn't mean the husband does whatever he wants, or dictates, or abuses.

And I am saying God will judge in this life, and the life to come, because the Scriptures say that. But it is also is true that some think because the Lord does not prevent every abuse that He will not judge. They are incorrect, as the Scriptures point out.

And you have offered no other means to address abuse than I have. There is legitimate authority in the world. There are legitimate churches who step in at times to help in cases of abuse. There are legitimate authorities that arrest abusers.

If you say I have to prevent all abuse in the world because I am reading the text for what it says--that Christ is head of the church, and the husband is the head of the wife, and should follow Christ's example, then that is illogical. I cannot prevent all abuse. And my view is not calling for abuse.

Headship is not abuse, or you are saying Christ is an abuser for being the Head.

You are advocating that men are gods on earth and have absolute power. you are not advocating for obedience to God's law you are advocating for obedience to men who are stand in's for God

Since you cannot, in fact, quote me saying anything remotely like that, and I have throughout insisted that they only act in God's authority, and should follow His example, and what He has said to do that is untrue.

I am saying Christ is the head of the church, and I don't think this is a disagreement among us. Do you not think the repeated texts about Christ being the head of the church are accurate? If you do think they are accurate, then your issue is not with headship. And so your objection to the text speaking of headship needs to be reconsidered in light of the text.

I have never been in disagreement to that. so your point is what.

That if Christ is Head, then headship is not slavery.

And the text also says that the husband has headship over the woman. And that is not slavery either. The husband is to love His wife as Christ did the church.

The issue is you are advocating for slavery and ablsote power by men

Which is not, in fact, my position.

I am sorry i will never advocate for that type of leadership

Nor does the text. So you should address what it actually says:

Ephesians 5:22-28 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.​

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. (NKJV)​

It says the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the church. And the husband should love her as Christ loves the church.

Headship is not wrong. And Christian headship should follow the example of Christ.

 

[tall73]

On what to do in case of a deadlock, we had a (male, Christian) marriage and family therapist explain how it's done in his house. An idea needs to have two yes votes in order to proceed. They don't do it unless both agree. A no vote, from either him or his wife, will block it.

In our house, the problem with that method is, I'm more flexible than my husband is. He assures me I have the right to say no if I don't want to do something, but honestly, I usually don't care. I am more likely to be neutral about an issue, and go along with him, than he is to go along with me. This means that the chances are far greater that his no vote will block something I want to do, rather than my no vote blocking something he wants to do. In practice, it looks to me as if he gets what he wants when he wants it, while I may or may not get what I want. Which I do sometimes resent. But over time he is becoming more flexible, and less likely to overrule me with a no. Maybe he sees it too.

What kind of things is he saying no to? Do you have a lot of these conversations?

That is a bit foreign to me, because I don't think we have many conversations like that. Or maybe I am just missing something?

So, for example, one says, I want to go walking together in the park today, and the other says they are too tired, and doesn't want to go? I mean, I suppose in that case it is saying no. But if either of us is too tired to go and says so, we don't see it as dictating. It just means the other is too tired, and it doesn't make sense to compel them.