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

[Paidiske]

And what do you do if, for example, you and your husband have different wishes regarding spending a day off?

What we usually do, is chat the day before about what each of us would like (and ask our daughter, too, who is old enough to have some input now); and then between us prioritise what we've listed. Seldom do any of us have exactly the day we might have crafted for ourselves, but there's usually something for everyone in it, and that is good enough.

 

[tall73]

I didn't see anything in your post about the actual dynamic of headship/submission and what that means for roles, decision making, power sharing (or not) etc.

I said I would spell out roles. I did. Women are seen to have distinct roles involving children and the home, and to be in more of a nurturing role. I had already pointed out indications of headship in the long post on the creation account, including references in the NT to that account.

I said headship in the garden was NOT primarily about conflict resolution, because there was no conflict prior to sin.

It was still headship. He was the one who took the lead , naming the animals, naming the woman, naming the specific woman Eve. The NT states that he was made first, and that woman was made for him. And Adam was held accountable, singled out in the NT as the one who brought death into the world, even though both sinned.

And we see headship continuing after the fall. I noted the relation of the curses to the original creation order. I understand you have said you don't intend to go over the various arguments. But they are there in any case for those who want to read them.

In some ways, it does. Equality is stressed, mutuality is stressed, reciprocity is stressed.

Headship and submission is not equality. Serving one another, yielding, is stressed. Agreed. But in the context of a plainly stated to be unequal roles where one is head, and one is to submit in all things. That does not excuse harshness, or not taking into account the wife's desires, interests, abilities, etc. It does not rule out yielding of the husband's will to that of the wife at times either. But it is still headship. And it is headship patterned after the love of Christ, Head of the church.

But my point to the PP was simply that we do not have to choose between two options of controlling hierarchy and "complete discord." There are other possibilities.

I would agree that there may not always be "complete discord" in the scenario you paint.

And as I said, in many instances, the process you describe is very much what we do.

But in other instances, it was not because there was no time to wait for a resolution, we had no direct answer from Scripture or the Spirit, and needed to make a decision. And in that case my wife submitted to me deciding the matter. And I did so in line with what I thought the Lord would have me to do in the interests of the entire family.

Is that it? Is that what headship means to you; "setting the tone"? What does that mean in practical terms?

Is that it?

You mean the notion of the husband directing the family towards the Lord as a unit seen in Joshua, Cornelius, etc?

Or the example of the adult sons of Jonadab following his commands, such that they, their wives, their daughters, etc. did not live in houses, plant vineyards, drink wine, etc. but lived in tents, and the Lord blessed them for their faithfulness?

Or the negative example of Eli who was judged for not correcting his sons?

Or the positive example of the overseer who rules his household well?

Because I ground my understanding of the marriage dynamic in submitting to one another.

Submitting to one another does not eliminate the role of head, which does take initiative and responsibility for the whole family. He can still yield his will to the desire of his wife in various circumstances, and yet be head.

Just as submitting to one another is still possible in the parent/child relationship, but the roles are not equal.

The marriage is not the same as the parent/child relationship, but is still indicated to not be a "partnership of equals". So if when you say you "ground" it in that, you then mean you erase the meaning of headship, stated to be submission by one to the head in all things, which you seem to do, then that is not following what is stated.

 

[Paidiske]

I said I would spell out roles. I did.

This is all very vague. What I am trying to get you to answer is, what does headship entail, in a Christian home today, in your view? What does a husband do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household? What does a wife do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household?

Because I don't see that in your post. And it leaves me confused as to what you are actually arguing for, in practice. What difference does it make to how lives are lived, decisions are made, and so on?

Submitting to one another does not eliminate the role of head, which does take initiative and responsibility for the whole family.

To some degree, I think these are mutually exclusive. You cannot take responsibility without also taking a measure of control. And control of one person by another does undermine mutual submission.

So if when you say you "ground" it in that, you then mean you erase the meaning of headship, which is stated to be submission by one to the head in all things, which you seem to do, then that is not following what is stated.

I don't "erase" the meaning of headship, but I understand it differently to what you seem to be arguing for here.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

Submitting to one another does not eliminate the role of head, which does take initiative and responsibility for the whole family.​

To some degree, I think these are mutually exclusive. You cannot take responsibility without also taking a measure of control. And control of one person by another does undermine mutual submission.

So you never yield in anything to your child? Yet you are undoubtedly responsible for your child, and have a say in your child's actions. We already established this.

 

[Paidiske]

So you never yield in anything to your child? Yet you are undoubtedly responsible for your child, and have a say in your child's actions. We already established this.

They are different things. You cannot both control someone, and engage in mutual submission with them, at the same time. You might alternate between them, at different times; but you cannot make and enforce decisions for someone - whether it's as trivial as insisting on brushing teeth or far more significant - and claim that that is mutual submission. It is not.

 

[tall73]

They are different things. You cannot both control someone, and engage in mutual submission with them, at the same time. You might alternate between them, at different times; but you cannot make and enforce decisions for someone - whether it's as trivial as insisting on brushing teeth or far more significant - and claim that that is mutual submission. It is not.

You said that to submit is to yield your will to that of another. You never do that with your child?

 

[Paidiske]

You said that to submit is to yield your will to that of another. You never do that with your child?

That's not what I'm saying. But overall, the dynamic of parent and child is not mutual submission. Because I have to make decisions for her, even against her will sometimes, and that is not mutual submission.

 

[tall73]

That's not what I'm saying. But overall, the dynamic of parent and child is not mutual submission. Because I have to make decisions for her, even against her will sometimes, and that is not mutual submission.

Well if it is not what you are saying, then you are admitting that you do yield to your child's will at times. So you are submitting at times to your child.

And yes, the overall relationship is not characterized by equal submission, because they are not equal roles. You are responsible, you do have control. But the spirit of service, the willingness to yield at times, and not just insist on your own way, etc. is still there. You are looking out for your child at all times, if you are walking in the Spirit.

And that is the point of the various authority relationships treated in the section. There are warnings given surrounding these relationships in particular, because these relationships involve authority, have the potential for abuse, and the authority should be used appropriately, in love, not harshly.

 

[Paidiske]

Well if it is not what you are saying, then you are admitting that you do yield to your child's will at times. So you are submitting at times to your child.

But not in a way I would describe as "mutual submission," as an overall dynamic. Not at all.

And that is the point of the various authority relationships treated in the section. There are warnings given surrounding these relationships in particular, because these relationships involve authority, have the potential for abuse, and the authority should be used appropriately, in love, not harshly.

So I'll go back to my previous question, which is the one thing you still have not answered; what does headship entail, in a Christian home today, in your view? What does a husband do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household? What does a wife do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household?

Just what level of control are you arguing for?

 

[tall73]

This is all very vague.

What part?

Men don't carry children in the womb, nurse children, etc. This is biological, and by necessity, takes time and commitment from the wife, and this nurturing role is part of the quiet spirit, and tenderness associated with wives.

Men being held accountable for the actions of the whole family is not vague. Eli was held responsible. Adam was held responsible.

If Eli was responsible, what should he have done? He should have removed them from their role, and limited their ability to destroy the work of the Lord.

So if Adam was responsible, what should he have done?

He should not have eaten the fruit, leading by example. And he should have not let Eve be deceived, but should have intervened, and warned her, telling her not to do it.

What I am trying to get you to answer is, what does headship entail, in a Christian home today, in your view? What does a husband do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household? What does a wife do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household?

I already addressed what it looks like in conflict resolution, when necessary. Most of the time it is not necessary, because if people are in the Spirit, there is usually agreement.

You indicated you never have situations where you disagree strongly, but a decision needs to be made quickly, and you have no direct answer from the Lord .

But I did say how we handled it.

I don't "erase" the meaning of headship, but I understand it differently to what you seem to be arguing for here.

The text connects headship of the husband to the submission of the wife in all things.

​

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)​

You have stated you won't address these arguments. That is your choice.

But you have indicated that you think any control is abuse. I don't see how you can reconcile that with the text. And whether you choose to defend your view or not, does not limit my ability to assess what you have said.

If God instituted headship, then headship, in itself, is not abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

What part?

The part that tells me exactly what difference headship and submission makes to how a couple live life, relate, make decisions, and so on.

I already addressed what it looks like in conflict resolution, when necessary.

So to your mind, headship means having the trump card in situations of disagreement?

Any situation of disagreement? Are there situations where even if you disagree profoundly, you think such a trump card should not be used?

For example, one I have seen commonly in pastoral situations is where a wife does not wish to have another child, (or to have another child yet), and the husband insists that he has the right to decide the number and spacing of children, and requires her to attempt to fall pregnant, against her will. To my mind that is utterly horrific and absolutely abusive, but is that, in your view, an acceptable use of headship-decision-making-power?

But you have indicated that you think any control is abuse. I don't see how you can reconcile that with the text.

I reconcile that with the text, by an understanding of the text that rules out any control.

If God instituted headship, then headship, in itself, is not abuse.

I would say, if God instituted headship, then anything abusive is not the correct understanding of headship.

 

[tall73]

But not in a way I would describe as "mutual submission," as an overall dynamic. Not at all.

So I'll go back to my previous question, which is the one thing you still have not answered; what does headship entail, in a Christian home today, in your view? What does a husband do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household? What does a wife do because of headship, that is different to an egalitarian household?

Just what level of control are you arguing for?

I have addressed it. I discussed what it looked like when we could not agree.

I also mentioned I never commanded my wife in anything. I didn't need to. We broadly agree on Christian principles. I I don't need to command her to do what she is willing to do. If my responsibility is to see that the whole family is following the Lord, and they are, then headship is not difficult, or harsh, or even needed to be exercised often.

Just as the author of Hebrews said to yield to the overseers, who must give account, who look over souls, and then their job would not be difficult.

I do encourage all the family often to focus on their relationship with God--not that I do that for them--I cannot.

Now if any member of the family is out of step with what the Scriptures say, yes I will appeal. And they see it as it is intended. They know I am accountable, and they know I am appealing to them to follow what the Lord has asked. I am not harming them by doing so.

Nor does it rule out other members of the family appealing as well, but the responsibility is higher for the one in authority.

And as I alluded to earlier in the thread, speaking of a specific example of my daughter, who was not an adult at the time, rebuking me using the words of Christ, if I, as head, am found to be out of line with Christ's will, I must immediately bring myself back into line with my Head. I should do it out of love, out of obedience. But also out of a desire to fulfill the responsibility He has given me. The husband's authority, and responsibility, is completely delegated. And I must give account.

And as I mentioned, by far the largest issue I have seen in my own family is when I, or others, fail to yield to Christ, fail to walk in the Spirit, and give way to anger, pride, etc. and are harsh or insist on our own way.

But that is not a symptom of unequal roles. That is the work of the flesh, rather than the fruit of the Spirit. It is failure to yield to the Headship of Christ. And that can happen in egalitarian, as well as complementarian homes.

 

[Paidiske]

I also mentioned I never commanded my wife in anything. I didn't need to.

So your wife is perfectly aligned with your attitudes. But what about everyone else? What are you arguing for, as a Christian norm? Should a husband command his wife? Should he be able to? Is that a proper understanding of "headship," in your view?

 

[tall73]

So to your mind, headship means having the trump card in situations of disagreement?

You either are not reading what I am saying completely, or are missed something. I said headship existed before sin, where there was no disagreement, so it is not PRIMARILY about settling disputes.

But I nonetheless did explain how we handle situations where we have tried to resolve it for some time, have to make a decision, and have no word from the Lord.

So you cannot say I did not explain that. I mentioned it has only happeend about four times. Usually we agree, or just work it out in the same way you described your family handles it.

Now you have said you never had a situation that fit those criteria. I guess we will have to see how you handle it if you do. But we resolved the decisions, there was no resentment, and it was far better than continuing to be in disagreement, and stalled in indecision.

Any situation of disagreement? Are there situations where even if you disagree profoundly, you think such a trump card should not be used?

I have already spelled out that the Lord's will trumps mine.

And in most situations, I see no need to even consider a "trump card" as you call it. I don't call it that, because it was an agreement between us that we resolve it that way. It is not a "trump card." We could have just continued to be in disagreementt, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. And when we were talking about critical issues, such as the one that involved safety of my children, we do have to get somewhere. The decision was not optional.

But, for instance, if we can't agree on what to do for a day off, that is not even on my radar to settle. We either compromise, or I decide to do what she wants, or she decides to do what I want, but that is not something we have to get resolved, not something the Lord is holding me accountable for, etc.

For example, one I have seen commonly in pastoral situations is where a wife does not wish to have another child, (or to have another child yet), and the husband insists that he has the right to decide the number and spacing of children, and requires her to attempt to fall pregnant, against her will. To my mind that is utterly horrific and absolutely abusive, but is that, in your view, an acceptable use of headship-decision-making-power?

This gets into a number of issues, so I will try to spell out some first, then get to the point.

a. This assumes that this is not a situation where both see birth control as wrong, and that God determines the number of children. If they think birth control of some form is acceptable then this scenario is possible. But the first thing to evaluate would be whether God sees birth control generally as acceptable. This should be, but often isn't, discussed prior to marriage.

b. Based on I Corinthians 7 they should not abstain from regular sexual relations, except by agreement, as both have a right to it.

c. I Corinthians 7 also indicates broadly two possible callings, which are singleness to the Lord, or marriage. Those engaging in marriage as Christians see children as a part of this, in most instances, as God wants godly offspring.

d. Obviously, this scenario is not involving the painful situation of those unable to have children.

e. What is not stated are the reasons for reluctance, whether some trauma, that migh require addressing, or health, or some other aspect. So it is hard to address a generic situation.

With the above in mind, I do not see why a husband who is loving his wife as Christ loves the church would force her to become pregnant at a certain time. They could engage in sex in a pattern that lessened the chance of pregnancy at a given time, while still honoring the right of both partners to the body of the other. But this would also still leave it open to life if God so chose. So no, I would not say he should exert headship in that situation to try to bring it about without regards to her will.

Though without knowing the particulars, it is hard to say what steps to resolve the impasse should be taken. If it is a health issue, there may be no way to resolve it. If it is the result of trauma that could be worked through, then steps could be taken to address that.

 

[tall73]

So your wife is perfectly aligned with your attitudes.

On major issues, dealing with relationship to the Lord, things He would hold me accountable for, etc.

Certainly, on various small matters we have disagreement. That is usually not something to get worked up about, and if we do, it is usually because of failing to say in step with the Spirit, not roles.

But what about everyone else? What are you arguing for, as a Christian norm? Should a husband command his wife? Should he be able to? Is that a proper understanding of "headship," in your view?

Yes, there may certainly be instances where a husband might command his wife, in the interest of all in the family.

For instance, if she were abusing a child, and he commanded her to stop, or even interposed physically, that would be correct.

If she were teaching the children to disregard the Lord's commands, he should rebuke her, counter her teaching, and command otherwise, to her and the children.

He would be held to account if he did not.

 

[Paidiske]

You either are not reading what I am saying completely, or are missed something. I said headship existed before sin, where there was no disagreement, so it is not PRIMARILY about settling disputes.

No, I think you are missing what I am trying to make very clear; what is the practical, lived difference between a "headship" marriage and an egalitarian marriage, for Christians, today?

I have already spelled out that the Lord's will trumps mine.

I'm not talking about situations where the Lord's will is clear and agreed. I'm talking about the more mundane stuff, where humans have to make decisions with whatever wisdom we have.

And in most situations, I see no need to even consider a "trump card" as you call it. I don't call it that, because it was an agreement between us that we resolve it that way. It is not a "trump card." We could have just continued to be in disagreementt, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. And when we were talking about critical issues, such as the one that involved safety of my children, we do have to get somewhere. The decision was not optional.

But, for instance, if we can't agree on what to do for a day off, that is not even on my radar to settle. We either compromise, or I decide to do what she wants, or she decides to do what I want, but that is not something we have to get resolved, not something the Lord is holding me accountable for, etc.

No, this is not quite what I was trying to ask. I was trying to ask about limits to the "right" to settle disagreements by saying, "Well, I'm the head, so we'll do as I decide."

So no, I would not say he should exert headship in that situation to try to bring it about without regards to her will.

So, what I am seeing you concede here, is that in fact "submission in all things" is not actually quite what you are arguing for. And I'm glad of that, because I have seen it be incredibly harmful in real life when husbands claim this kind of right.

But then the question becomes, where are the limits? Where do you think a husband should have the right to control his wife, and where not, and how is this decided?

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, there may certainly be instances where a husband might command his wife, in the interest of all in the family.

For instance, if she were abusing a child, and he commanded her to stop, or even interposed physically, that would be correct.

If she were teaching the children to disregard the Lord's commands, he should rebuke her, counter her teaching, and command otherwise, to her and the children.

He would be held to account if he did not.

This is not a headship thing. Anyone might intervene in a situation of abuse, and should. And a wife should similarly intervene if a husband were so badly teaching the children, also.

It seems to me that you are arguing for what I might describe as a "limited headship" role. A husband has the right to control, but should only exercise it in situations which meet certain criteria (which you have not spelled out clearly).

And that's better than an unlimited right to control, but is still, I think, very dangerous, especially when the criteria are not absolutely crystal clear and agreed.

 

[tall73]

But you have indicated that you think any control is abuse. I don't see how you can reconcile that with the text.

I reconcile that with the text, by an understanding of the text that rules out any control.

Since you won't address the arguments here, by your own admission, you are asking us to do what you will not do--explain.

But I have still explained, despite, ironically, your lack of reciprocity.

I don't think headship on the part of the husband, which is stated, and submission on the part of the wife, which is stated, rules out any intended potential of control.

I would say, if God instituted headship, then anything abusive is not the correct understanding of headship.

Yes, if God instituted headship, then anything abusive is not the correct understanding of headship. But that is because God instituted what is good.

It does not mean you can impose your own definition of abuse, and then say we have to craft any understanding of the text around your definition.

If God instituted headship, it is His design. It is His to define. God is the one who defines morality as well. Though I would say that God IS love, God IS holy, and so that definition is based on His nature.

And since Christ is Head, then headship is not abuse. Headship is love, by design. The husband is asked to imitate Christ.

And Christ does command. Christ does rebuke. And sometimes, Christ does control. But He acts in love.

And you have, intentionally by earlier statements, inconsistently applied this. You do not see a child submitting to parents as abuse. You do seem to indicate a wife submitting to a husband as head as abuse.

You say this is because of the nature of the child, and the relationship. Well, we agree in part. The nature of the child is different from that of the wife. The nature of the relationship is different.

But what you have not yet explained is how they are not both unequal roles, when the text describes headship and submission, and compares it to Christ and the church. And I do not think you CAN explain it.

This is not attempting to be insulting, or calling your integrity into question, or anything of the sort. Up is not down. Wet is not dry. Headship and submission, are not equal partnership. And even if you have decided not to defend your view, or address my arguments, that does not limit me from stating my assessment of the text.

 

[tall73]

So, what I am seeing you concede here, is that in fact "submission in all things" is not actually quite what you are arguing for. And I'm glad of that, because I have seen it be incredibly harmful in real life when husbands claim this kind of right.

But then the question becomes, where are the limits? Where do you think a husband should have the right to control his wife, and where not, and how is this decided?

I stated that submission is all things is always regulated by the Head of the church, by His commands, AND by His example of love. So it is never about just what the husband wants. The whole calculation is the reverse. If the husband is accountable for the spiritual, and to a lesser extent physical, good of the whole family, then that must be the start of any such calculation.

The limits are given in the very spelled out commands to love as Christ did.

Let's say that the reason to delay pregnancy is the result of rape that radically changed the wife's perspective on many things.

Does that mean the husband gives up on any chance of another child? No. But does it mean that love would say, get pregnant anyway, despite the trauma? No. There is going to have to be a process, that might result in an outcome the husband doesn't desire, and for that matter that the wife doesn't either, but the trauma is too difficult to overcome. But it also doesn't mean just giving up, and not trying to work through it.

 

[Paidiske]

Since you won't address the arguments here, by your own admission, you are asking us to do what you will not do--explain.

But I have still explained, despite, ironically, your lack of reciprocity.

Not at all. I'm quite happy to explain how I understand and live out egalitarianism and mutual submission. What I did not want to do was get bogged down in arguments about Biblical detail that was not really my main interest in the discussion.

I don't think headship on the part of the husband, which is stated, and submission on the part of the wife, which is stated, rules out any intended potential of control.

But love rules out abuse. And abuse is, fundamentally, a dynamic of control.

It does not mean you can impose your own definition of abuse, and then say we have to craft any understanding of the text around your definition.

It's not my definition. It's a definition formed from observing the harm done by controlling behaviour. We can identify abuse from its fruit.

And you have, intentionally by earlier statements, inconsistently applied this. You do not see a child submitting to parents as abuse. You do seem to indicate a wife submitting to a husband as head as abuse.

I have acknowledged that due to the developmental immaturity of children, some control by parents is necessary. There is certainly a degree of control of children by parents which goes beyond what is necessary and is abusive.

But I am not saying that a wife submitting to her husband is abuse. I am saying that a husband controlling a wife - including using one-sided submission, or religious commitment to submission, to do so - is abuse.