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

[tall73]

This is not a headship thing. Anyone might intervene in a situation of abuse, and should.

A. We agree a wife should intervene as well. Would she command?

B. And a wife should similarly intervene if a husband were so badly teaching the children, also.

Would she command?

[/quote]

While everyone has a responsibility, you have not addressed the arguments about Adam's greater guild, Eli's greater guilt, etc.

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.

Read Ephesians 5 and 6 and see if it is not spelling out limits, and warnings against misuse of authority, and the appropriate attitude for those in authority.

 

[Paidiske]

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

Ironically, that's the argument I'm using to say that the limit is that control is never acceptable. That's the limit.

Overall, I think your position is very vague. I would sum it up as, "A husband has a right to control his wife where he thinks it's good and right and loving to do so." Well, that's highly subjective.

 

[tall73]

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

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.

I have to go to bed, but will try to take this up shortly.

But if control is not by default abuse, then we are now again moving closer to what the text says.

 

[tall73]

Ironically, that's the argument I'm using to say that the limit is that control is never acceptable. That's the limit.

Then you would have to say that Christ never controls. And that is not true.

 

[Paidiske]

A. We agree a wife should intervene as well. Would she command?

I think she'd more than command. If need be she'd issue a demand, and ultimatum, and if that were not heeded she'd leave, and force the issue. And would have every right to do so.

While everyone has a responsibility, you have not addressed the arguments about Adam's greater guild, Eli's greater guilt, etc.

I can see an argument that God holds those with more power in a household or family group more responsible than the children or more junior adults for the life of that household or family group. I can see that in a patriarchy, where the men hold more of the power, that would mean God holding the men more responsible. But I see that as contingent, not that God intends or desires the disempowerment of the women.

 

[Paidiske]

But if control is not by default abuse, then we are now again moving closer to what the text says.

Control might be necessary for someone developmentally immature, or so cognitively impaired that they need others to act on their behalf. But that does not give a licence for control between capable adults.

Then you would have to say that Christ never controls. And that is not true.

I just have to point out that a husband is not actually God. God controls the very fact of our existence and its every condition, in every moment. A husband does not.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

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.

What do you do when one insists on something and the other categorically disagrees?

 

[Paidiske]

What do you do when one insists on something and the other categorically disagrees?

I'm not able to come up with any time that that has happened.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

I think she'd more than command. If need be she'd issue a demand, and ultimatum, and if that were not heeded she'd leave, and force the issue. And would have every right to do so.

If Google translator translated it correctly for me in this case, you are teaching women bad things. After all, Jesus Christ said: what God has joined together, let no man separate. Do the words of Jesus Christ mean nothing to you anymore?

Do you know that because of advisors like you, the number of divorces is already higher than the number of marriages? Once she threatens her husband: I’ll leave if you don’t do it my way, another, tenth, hundredth time, and then he says: go. And there is no marriage. And you will be held accountable for teaching such things.

Because failure to keep a commandment is a sin.

Of course, the husband should not abuse his leadership; he should not be a power-hungry person. But Scripture also says:

But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And he said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,
so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, what God has joined together, let no man separate.

But to those who have entered into marriage I command not I, but the Lord: the wife must not divorce her husband,
If she gets divorced, she must remain single, or be reconciled with her husband, and the husband must not leave his wife.

For man is not from wife, but woman is from man;
and man was not created for wife, but woman for man.
Therefore, a wife should have on her head a sign of power over her, for the Angels.
However, neither is a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, in the Lord.
For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet it is from God.

Let the wife study in silence, with all submission;
But I do not allow a wife to teach, nor to rule over her husband, but to be in silence.

Do you change the commandments of God with your stupid concepts associated with pride and ignorance? And you incite women to blackmail their husbands with divorces?

If Google translator translated it correctly for me, then this is what you are offering (if the husband does not listen, leave him) - this is dominion over the husband, which is prohibited by the commandments of God, this is that cheeky and daring spirit that the Monk Paisius of Svyatogorsk spoke about.

The fight against God's commandments is a fight against God. Beware!

 

[Paidiske]

If Google translator translated it correctly for me in this case, you are teaching women bad things.

No, I am not. If a parent is abusing a child, it is not teaching bad things for the other parent to leave, and take the child, in order to protect the child.

Nobody is obliged to stay in an abusive situation. That is not of God.

After all, Jesus Christ said: what God has joined together, let no man separate. Do the words of Jesus Christ mean nothing to you anymore?

It is the abuser who has caused the separation, not the person who responds in order to ensure safety.

Do you know that because of advisors like you, the number of divorces is already higher than the number of marriages?

Why are you blaming the person who says to remove a child from an abusive situation, rather than blaming the abusers? Or blaming the people who tell fathers they have the God-given right to abuse?

 

[tall73]

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.

So a religious commitment, to submit to one's husband as head, because the text says so, is abuse?

 

[tall73]

Paidiske said:​

​

Ironically, that's the argument I'm using to say that the limit is that control is never acceptable. That's the limit.​

​

​

tall73 said:​

​

Then you would have to say that Christ never controls. And that is not true.​

I just have to point out that a husband is not actually God. God controls the very fact of our existence and its every condition, in every moment. A husband does not.

No one claimed that the husband was God.

But since you have agreed that Christ does control, and it is not abuse, then that means control, of its nature, is not abuse.

If Christ is Head, and it is not abuse, then Headship, of its nature is not abuse.

And while we agree that the husband is not God, I have to point out that the text says AS the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

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 say it is not abuse by default for you have control over your child. You say it is not abuse for Christ to have control over you. The text directly compares the Headship of Christ to the headship of the husband, and the submission of the church to the submission of the wife.

So for you to claim that the headship of the husband which is compared to that of Christ cannot involve control without being abuse, that is not what the text says at all.

God designed headship. Christ exemplifies it. It is not abuse.

And the husband not being God doesn't change that. God is the one who inspired the text to say that the headship of the man is to be patterned off of the Headship of Christ.

 

[Paidiske]

So a religious commitment, to submit to one's husband as head, because the text says so, is abuse?

If a wife reads the text, is convinced of what she believes God is asking her to do, and freely chooses to do so, with no pressure, no coercion, and no expectation from her husband, her religious leaders, or others... that might not be abuse.

But the minute that she is told she must submit, or risk divine displeasure, the minute she is pressured or coerced by her husband, wider family, or faith community, and so on, the minute there is any dynamic of control, yes, that's a form of abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

No one claimed that the husband was God.

But since you have agreed that Christ does control, and it is not abuse, then that means control, of its nature, is not abuse.

My point is that God is in control of every single thing, all the time. We only exist because God wills it. It's just not even comparable to human relationships. But even then I would note that God does not compel us to obey, but (within our created limits) gives us free will, even the free will to choose to defy or disobey.

I would argue that control of one competent human adult, by another, is abuse. It diminishes the agency and dignity of the one being controlled, and is profoundly harmful.

I have to point out that the text says AS the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

At the same time, surely you'd have to concede that that comparison has limits. A wife simply can't relate to her husband the way we relate to God. By the sheer fact of their completely different natures.

You say it is not abuse for Christ to have control over you.

I don't agree that this is comparable to what we're discussing in marriage, though.

So for you to claim that the headship of the husband which is compared to that of Christ cannot involve control without being abuse, that is not what the text says at all.

No, it's not what the text says. It's what we learn from our lived experience. Control of one adult human being by another is abusive, is profoundly harmful.

 

[tall73]

I can see an argument that God holds those with more power in a household or family group more responsible than the children or more junior adults for the life of that household or family group. I can see that in a patriarchy, where the men hold more of the power, that would mean God holding the men more responsible. But I see that as contingent, not that God intends or desires the disempowerment of the women.

But it is not just in that context. As was noted, in addition to the various indications of headship in the creation account, fall, and related NT texts which refer to that, spelled out at length in another post, you also have to address that Adam was held responsible, though both sinned.

He confronted Adam first, though Eve sinned first. The curse regarding death was given to him, regarding all humanity. And the NT text confirms that he was the one responsible for sin and death coming into the world, though both Adam and Eve sinned:

Romans 5:12-21 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)​

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.​

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NKJV)​

​

Sin and death entered through one man--Adam. He was the one indicated to be at fault, because he was the head.

Where Adam brought death, Christ brought grace, righteousness, and eternal life.

 

[tall73]

But the minute that she is told she must submit, or risk divine displeasure, the minute she is pressured or coerced by her husband, wider family, or faith community, and so on, the minute there is any dynamic of control, yes, that's a form of abuse.

Paul wrote this under inspiration, and it is not abuse:

Colossians 3:18-19 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

 

[Paidiske]

But it is not just in that context.

No? Are you going to try to tell me that the Scriptures weren't written in a patriarchal society? Of course they reflect patriarchal norms.

Paul wrote this under inspiration, and it is not abuse:

Colossians 3:18-19 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.​

Paul also wrote a lot of other things, that qualify this. He is not simply setting out a relationship of husbands controlling their wives. We have to look at the whole picture, not cherry-pick a prooftext.

 

[tall73]

My point is that God is in control of every single thing, all the time. We only exist because God wills it. It's just not even comparable to human relationships. But even then I would note that God does not compel us to obey, but (within our created limits) gives us free will, even the free will to choose to defy or disobey.

Yes, you have free will to disobey. And does God warn of judgment for those who do?

Yet, according to your statements, warnings that someone has to submit, or face judgment, is abuse.

I would argue that control of one competent human adult, by another, is abuse. It diminishes the agency and dignity of the one being controlled, and is profoundly harmful.

Yes, you would argue it. But the text says something different.

And you already, out of strategy you indicated, refused to discuss clear examples where God says we have to submit to governing authorities--because it is completely clear that is a competent adult, submitting to competent adult authorities, at God's instigation, and to not do so brings judgment:

Romans 13:1-5 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. (NKJV)​

​

This text is directly against your posited standard of what constitutes abuse--or else you are saying God is abusing by inspiring this text.

He commands adults, submit to adults, according to God's will, or face judgment.

And it is NOT abuse.

At the same time, surely you'd have to concede that that comparison has limits. A wife simply can't relate to her husband the way we relate to God. By the sheer fact of their completely different natures.

This is a simile, with the analogy coming later. And your saying there are limits is a tacit admission that the simile points out headship and submission in both cases.

The text CERTAINLY doesn't say what you indicate with your interpretation:

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

Vs

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be equal partners to their husbands in everything.

That completely breaks the simile altogether!

No, it's not what the text says.

You have admitted it is not what the text says.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, you have free will to disobey. And does God warn of judgment for those who do?

I don't know why you can't see the absolute gulf between God and a human husband. As if a husband has this kind of authority, or should.

Yes, you would argue it. But the text says something different.

I disagree. The text uses other language, but the text also calls into question unequal relationships of power and control. That is why we are told to submit to one another, love one another, build one another up, etc. etc.

And you already, out of strategy you indicated, refused to discuss clear examples where God says we have to submit to governing authorities--because it is completely clear that is a competent adult, submitting to competent adult authorities, at God's instigation, and to not do so brings judgment:

Completely different. Group members adhering to agreed ways of group functioning for the good of all, is completely different to a petty domestic tyrant having the right to control his wife.

And your saying there are limits is a tacit admission that the simile points out headship and submission in both cases.

What I am pointing out is that we need to be honest about the vast differences, as well as the similarities, in relationship.

You have admitted it is not what the text says.

So what? The text does not give anyone a licence to harm, to control, to abuse. No matter how anyone wants to present it.

 

[tall73]

No? Are you going to try to tell me that the Scriptures weren't written in a patriarchal society? Of course they reflect patriarchal norms.

You have now decided not to address the argument that Adam is held to account for sin and death entering the world, though both sinned, per Romans.

And now you may clarify--are you saying that the events in the garden, and the NT interpretation, are skewed by the authors of Scripture?

The garden shows headship. The interpretation of the garden account shows headship. Plain texts state headship. The text has no such principle that you have stated that one human having authority over another competent human is by default abuse.

You are consistent in your stated goal to point out a secular standard of abuse.

But I see no reason why Christians should substitute your assessment of experience, above the word of God, and what He spells out as designed.

You admit the text does not say what you argue for.

You decline to address the arguments in Scripture that describe the relationship differently than you claim.

People have a clear choice to accept your argument based on your chosen evidence of secular principles, or to look at what the text says.