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

[tall73]

If you want one-sided submission by women, Islam is calling.

I haven't looked into how Islam handles submission on this subject. Perhaps you have some studied view.

But if you want to address the arguments I have made, you will need to address the actual arguments I made, and the Christian Scriptures which we are looking at.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

Now we discussed how Jesus went against Jewish and Roman culture. He taught against divorce, even though the law made exception for it, due to hardness of heart, and even though some schools of Jewish thought allowed it with little regard for the woman. Jesus had no problem calling out wrong culture, and teaching what was true, and He did so from Eden, as you note.​

​

Likewise, Jesus had no problem with having female disciples, who learned at His feet, which would be culturally scandalous. He still did it, and did not worry about culture.​

​

And Paul had no issue stating that we should not be slaves of men, that you should buy your freedom if you can, and appealing for a slave to be freed, because he saw slavery as wrong, even though the culture did not.​

​

If something was wrong they did not uphold it. But that is not what we see in the case of wives submitting to husbands. Paul and Peter both uphold it. Paul upholds it in a number of contexts. That is why I said you cannot say they are simply referring to culture if they make theological arguments supporting headship. The comments exist in a culture. But they do not go against the aspect of headship. They go against the Roman practice of tyrannical practices, by showing the example of Jesus.​

​

Jesus is the head of the church. The husband is the head of the wife. The husband should imitate Jesus in the practice of headship, serving, and laying down his life.​

However, I did notice this, and I actually disagree. I would argue that the way Paul and Peter write to husbands, radically undermines one-sided submission. Yes, they tell wives to submit to husbands. They also tell husbands to submit to, and love, and honour their wives.

This is a good chance to pick back up on the line of discussion we were engaged in earlier. You indicated:

As I said before, there are aspects of being in a position of authority/responsibility/accountability where mutual submission is not possible (I would argue, because both of you are actually submitting to something else). It's not that mutual submission rules out roles; it's that roles sometimes preclude mutual submission.

I think this is where we are using terms differently, a bit.

I do not say that mutual submission is impossible in the parent child role, even though a child is not mentally able to lead. Mutual submission is an attitude, a mindset, of serving others, looking to other's interestes, etc. In this case all agree, due to the nature of a child, that it will be unequal submission. The parent has the accountability and leadership role.

But the there is mutual submission because the parent is looking to the child's best interests, putting aside their own interests for the sake of the child, etc.

In the even more extreme example, Jesus, though Head, and God of the universe, showed mutual submission to us, though He never ceased to be who He is. He showed how a loving Head acts, which does involve mutual submission, even within different roles.

That is why I was not arguing for one-sided submission. I have noted that there is mutual submission. And there is also headship.

So yes, it undermines "one-sided" submission. It does not undermine submission of wives to headship. But it does rule out the husband just acting on his own whims, by his own authority, without regard for the spouse, etc. His whole mindset is to be like that of the Head of the Church, Christ, in that He is giving himself up for her.

That does not undermine headship. Because the headship in question is patterned off of the Headship of Christ, who did serve, who did love ,and did honor. But He was still head.

Paul does not say that husbands are not the head. He says they should follow the example of the Head of the church, Jesus, in self-sacrificing love.

Legal realities of the culture notwithstanding, they did all they could to level the playing field, while still upholding the goodness of marriage.

They certainly did all they could to uphold the goodness of marriage. And the culture did distort that.

What Paul's statements undermine is not headship, but the ways that headship is exercised.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

tall73 said:​

Now we discussed how Jesus went against Jewish and Roman culture. He taught against divorce, even though the law made exception for it, due to hardness of heart, and even though some schools of Jewish thought allowed it with little regard for the woman. Jesus had no problem calling out wrong culture, and teaching what was true, and He did so from Eden, as you note.​

​

Likewise, Jesus had no problem with having female disciples, who learned at His feet, which would be culturally scandalous. He still did it, and did not worry about culture.​

​

And Paul had no issue stating that we should not be slaves of men, that you should buy your freedom if you can, and appealing for a slave to be freed, because he saw slavery as wrong, even though the culture did not.​

​

If something was wrong they did not uphold it. But that is not what we see in the case of wives submitting to husbands. Paul and Peter both uphold it. Paul upholds it in a number of contexts. That is why I said you cannot say they are simply referring to culture if they make theological arguments supporting headship. The comments exist in a culture. But they do not go against the aspect of headship. They go against the Roman practice of tyrannical practices, by showing the example of Jesus.​

​

Jesus is the head of the church. The husband is the head of the wife. The husband should imitate Jesus in the practice of headship, serving, and laying down his life.​

This is a good chance to pick back up on the line of discussion we were engaged in earlier. You indicated:



I think this is where we are using terms differently, a bit.

I do not say that mutual submission is impossible in the parent child role, even though a child is not mentally able to lead. Mutual submission is an attitude, a mindset, of serving others, looking to other's interestes, etc. In this case all agree, due to the nature of a child, that it will be unequal submission. The parent has the accountability and leadership role.

But the there is mutual submission because the parent is looking to the child's best interests, putting aside their own interests for the sake of the child, etc.

In the even more extreme example, Jesus, though Head, and God of the universe, showed mutual submission to us, though He never ceased to be who He is. He showed how a loving Head acts, which does involve mutual submission, even within different roles.

That is why I was not arguing for one-sided submission. I have noted that there is mutual submission. And there is also headship.

So yes, it undermines "one-sided" submission. It does not undermine submission of wives to headship. But it does rule out the husband just acting on his own whims, by his own authority, without regard for the spouse, etc. His whole mindset is to be like that of the Head of the Church, Christ, in that He is giving himself up for her.

That does not undermine headship. Because the headship in question is patterned off of the Headship of Christ, who did serve, who did love ,and did honor. But He was still head.

Paul does not say that husbands are not the head. He says they should follow the example of the Head of the church, Jesus, in self-sacrificing love.




Well, we agree on part of that. They certainly did all they could to uphold the goodness of marriage.

What Paul's statements undermine is not headship, but the ways that headship is exercised.

Tall,
I don't think Jesus hung on a cross and got whipped into hamburger meat and got squired like a kabob so that women could be bossed around and be the slaves of men. somehow that does not seem right.

 

[tall73]

Tall,
I don't think Jesus hung on a cross and got whipped into hamburger meat and got squired like a kabob so that women could be bossed around and be the slaves of men. somehow that does not seem right.

No matter how many straw-men you attack, you still are not addressing the arguments I made, until you look at my actual arguments.

I did not argue for bossing around, or slavery.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

No matter how many straw-men you attack, you still are not addressing the arguments.

that is not a strawman, I have addressed the issue, it is not more complicated than I have explained. Paul's arguments are situational, not universal. I have shown you How I came to that conclusion, I have not seen anything that refutes that. Nothing more to argue. you want to make it more complicated then it is.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Well, in any case ,we are glad they did throw in the net!

They obeyed immediately and unquestioningly. But is this what today's wives do?

 

[tall73]

that is not a strawman, I have addressed the issue, it is not more complicated than I have explained. Paul's arguments are situational, not universal. I have shown you How I came to that conclusion, I have not seen anything that refutes that. Nothing more to argue.

It is a strawman. It is not situational, because Paul argues for headship, comparing it to the Headship of Christ. That is not a local issue. There was no Roman cultural practice of imitating the Headship of Christ.

Paul did not disparage headship. He showed the example of how to actually carry out Headship.

​

Ephesians 5:23-27 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. (NKJV)​

 

[Adventist Dissident]

tall73 said:​

Now we discussed how Jesus went against Jewish and Roman culture. He taught against divorce, even though the law made exception for it, due to hardness of heart, and even though some schools of Jewish thought allowed it with little regard for the woman. Jesus had no problem calling out wrong culture, and teaching what was true, and He did so from Eden, as you note.​

​

Likewise, Jesus had no problem with having female disciples, who learned at His feet, which would be culturally scandalous. He still did it, and did not worry about culture.​

​

And Paul had no issue stating that we should not be slaves of men, that you should buy your freedom if you can, and appealing for a slave to be freed, because he saw slavery as wrong, even though the culture did not.​

​

If something was wrong they did not uphold it. But that is not what we see in the case of wives submitting to husbands. Paul and Peter both uphold it. Paul upholds it in a number of contexts. That is why I said you cannot say they are simply referring to culture if they make theological arguments supporting headship. The comments exist in a culture. But they do not go against the aspect of headship. They go against the Roman practice of tyrannical practices, by showing the example of Jesus.​

husband and wife are married couples which is not relevant to their roles in church and corporate life. We are not talking about roles at home we are talking about roles at church.

​

Jesus is the head of the church. The husband is the head of the wife. The husband should imitate Jesus in the practice of headship, serving, and laying down his life.​

again not relevant to church life
Tall you are intentionally confusing and conflating the argument. This is about roles at church not roles at home. so the discussion of Marriage is not relevant here, no one is debating home life here. it is church life only. please stop confusing the argument and make only points relevant to the roles in church.

 

[tall73]

​

You really ought to read more carefully:​

tall73 said:​

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

​

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

headship is slavery

 

[tall73]

Tall you are intentionally confusing and conflating the argument. This is about roles at church not roles at home. so the discussion of Marriage is not relevant here, no one is debating home life here. it is church life only.

You really ought to read more carefully:

Do you still think we are not talking past each other?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

​

You really ought to read more carefully:​

tall73 said:​

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

​

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

no tall we are told that we are slaves to Christ, so you are wrong again.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

You really ought to read more carefully:

View attachment 350249

then I am out, i have nothing to say on this matter. I thought it was about church life.

 

[tall73]

no tall we are told that we are slaves to Christ, so you are wrong again.

​

John 15:13-15 13 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. (NKJV)​

​

We are servants of Christ, but He treats us as friends. His Headship is not abuse.

And neither is the headship of the husband when He follows what the text says:

Ephesians 5:23-25 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 (NKJV)​

 

[tall73]

then I am out, i have nothing to say on this matter. I thought it was about church life.

Understandable. But that is why I said we were talking past each other. I have no issue with women preaching, prophesying, praying, teaching, etc. as we see I Corinthians 11 says they prophesy and pray, Acts shows Priscilla teaching, and Paul's says women are his fellow laborers in the gospel, etc.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

​

You really ought to read more carefully:​

​

you should be more respectful and not engage in personal attacks.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Understandable. But that is why I said we were talking past each other. I have no issue with women preaching, prophesying, praying, teaching, etc. as we see I Corinthians 11 says they prophesy and pray, Acts shows Priscilla teaching, and Paul's statement saying women are his fellow laborers in the gospel, etc.

then the discussion is over.

 

[Paidiske]

I was asking you how you resolve issues when you have to make a decision, you have prayed and have no answer, etc. and you still disagree.

I did not take it as a question on how I do these things, but on what the options were, generally. And there are whole books on conflict resolution, and I didn't feel like giving you a summary of them, so that's why I suggested you didn't need me to do that work for you.

The four exceptions to that were when we could not resolve the issue, and have to have a decision, have received no answer to prayer, or other way to resolve it. Since she agreed to resolve it by me making a decision, that is what we did. I am asking what you would do.

We have never faced such a situation. But I would not agree to let him make the decision just because he's the bloke. Possibly I would suggest that we seek counselling as a couple, to work through the various possibilities with an impartial person (and someone who might see things neither of us had yet seen).

Mutual submission is an attitude, a mindset, of serving others, looking to other's interestes, etc.

Yes, I think we are using terms a bit differently. Mutual submission is more than this. It is the refusal to exercise power over the other, to limit or coerce them.

This is why I say that sometimes a parent, a church leader, or whatever, needs to act in a way which is not mutual submission. Even if it's in the best interests of the other (or of the church community as a whole), and necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the parental or leadership role, by virtue of the fact that it is a one-sided exercise of power, it is not mutual submission.

But this is what I object to in a marriage, because one spouse coercing or limiting the other is never in the best interests of the other, and neither spouse has responsibilities or role which require it.

 

[tall73]

Yes, I think we are using terms a bit differently. Mutual submission is more than this. It is the refusal to exercise power over the other, to limit or coerce them.

This is why I say that sometimes a parent, a church leader, or whatever, needs to act in a way which is not mutual submission. Even if it's in the best interests of the other (or of the church community as a whole), and necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the parental or leadership role, by virtue of the fact that it is a one-sided exercise of power, it is not mutual submission.

So then, in your view. Jesus could never engage in mutual submission?

 

[Paidiske]

So then, in your view. Jesus could never engage in mutual submission?

I think the whole point of the way Jesus has been with humanity is that he has not coerced or forced us. Invited, encouraged, inspired, and so on, yes; but he doesn't force us to do what he would have us do. He allows us free will. If we choose otherwise, we are free to make that choice.

I mean, there's a fundamental asymmetry in that relationship of creator and creature that can never really be mutual in the way a relationship between two people can. But part of what Christ modelled for us is not exploiting that asymmetry.

 

[tall73]

I think the whole point of the way Jesus has been with humanity is that he has not coerced or forced us. Invited, encouraged, inspired, and so on, yes; but he doesn't force us to do what he would have us do. He allows us free will. If we choose otherwise, we are free to make that choice.

I was asking if Jesus did, or did not, practice mutual submission.