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

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

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.​

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.

You said a competant human adult controlling a competent human adult is abuse. That is what is happening in the text. God instituted governing authorities. They have legitimate authority, and control, even referring to the sword.

And it is not just groups. Peter noted that the king was an authority, who had control over competant adults:

1 Peter 2:13-14​

13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. (NKJV)​

 

[Paidiske]

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?

I wouldn't use the word skewed. I would say that these texts reflect the patriarchal societies in which they were written.

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

Gee, I wonder why being consistently against abuse, even that justified by religious beliefs, might be important.

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.

Nothing in the Scriptures requires husbands to control their wives. Quite to the contrary.

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

However, I put forward that it is consistent with what I argue for.

You said a competant human adult controlling a competent human adult is abuse. That is what is happening in the text. God instituted governing authorities. They have legitimate authority, and control, even referring to the sword.

I didn't want to get into this because it is such a completley different situation, but I disagree that governing authorities are functioning in the same way as husbands in households.

 

[tall73]

I wouldn't use the word skewed. I would say that these texts reflect the patriarchal societies in which they were written.

So Adam was not actually responsible for sin and death entering the world? Paul, in this text just read in the view of his patriarchal society?

The Spirit inspired error regarding sin, death and salvation? Really?

Gee, I wonder why being consistently against abuse, even that justified by religious beliefs, might be important.

I am consistently against abuse. But I do not call what God ordains abuse. God instituted headship, and is the example for headship as the Head.

However, I put forward that it is consistent with what I argue for.

Of course it is not.

This is a simile:

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

Your view of it is not at all a simile, and not at all similar to what the text says.

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

I didn't want to get into this because it is such a completley different situation, but I disagree that governing authorities are functioning in the same way as husbands in households.

The claim was not that governing authorities are the same as husbands. The claim was that your standard of one competent human adult having authority over another competent human adult is abuse, is not in line with Scripture.

 

[Paidiske]

So Adam was not actually responsible for sin and death entering the world? Paul, in this text just read in the view of his patriarchal society?

I think that Paul reflected on the story in a way that he thought would be pastorally helpful in his own social context.

I am consistently against abuse. But I do not call what God ordains abuse.

But do you fail to recognise some forms of abuse, or the harm done by some forms of controlling behaviour?

Do you even acknowledge that people, with reference to headship, excuse and argue for marital rape, excuse and argue for physical beating as "discipline," excuse threats and intimidation, excuse and argue for financial control, social control and isolation, use religious arguments to attempt to control what she wears, what she does, where she goes, who she sees, what media she can access, and so on? Encourage men to deliberately marry young women whose life experience is small, isolate them, prevent them from being educated, so that they can more easily keep them "submissive"? Tell women to stay in abusive relationships?

You might say, "but that's not what I mean by headship," but every time you argue for headship, you argue for wifely submission, you argue for a husband's right to make decisions and control, those are the arguments you bolster. That's the stream of thinking you legitimise.

Maybe you really haven't seen it. Maybe your experience of headship is only in the nice, everyone-is-happy, occasionally-we-need-a-tiebreaker-and-we-all-agree-I-use-it-sparingly-and-wisely, sort. But that's not what headship is, out there in the wider Christian landscape. Maybe browse a website or two like this and see where headship ends up when it's not questioned: Biblical Gender Roles

I am not saying that what God ordains is abuse. I am saying that when we see abusive forms of behaviour, and people excuse them as God-ordained, they have misunderstood what God ordains.

Of course it is not.

In your humble opinion.

The claim was that your standard of one competent human adult having authority over another competent human adult is abuse, is not in line with Scripture.

That's not what I said. I am not arguing against authority. I am arguing against control. I do not agree that participating in a society according to its laws fits the mould of the kind of control that I am arguing against as abusive.

 

[tall73]

I think that Paul reflected on the story in a way that he thought would be pastorally helpful in his own social context.

Yes or no, was Paul correct in singling out Adam as the "one man" through whom sin and death came into the world?

But do you fail to recognise some forms of abuse, or the harm done by some forms of controlling behaviour?

physical beating as "discipline,"

Do I even acknowledge? We already discussed for pages physical beating and "breaking of bones. " Yet, you bring it out again.

​

tall73 said:

However, since you have associated my view with breaking of bones in your earlier statement, I want everyone in the thread to be clear on this point. By reading these statements, would you get the idea that I

a. do
b. do not

endorse husband's breaking their wives bones?

tall73 said:​

I noted that any husband abusing his wife is going directly against the text. So the idea of excusing abuse is clearly not in the text. Those who do so are twisting the text. And again, Scriptural principles are not invalidated by people ignoring them or twisting them.​

​

tall73 said:​

The text rules out breaking bones completely. Not one person who you saw with broken bones was in that condition because the person who inflicted such damage was following what this text said.​

​

tall73 said:​

Loving their own wives as Christ loved the church is clearly not in line with breaking her bones.​

​

tall73 said:​

And even "wives submit to your husbands" does not say break her bones, which is ridiculous. You cannot blame that type of abuse on the text. Nor can you claim that my reading in this thread of the text leads to such abuse. Because it rules out any such behavior.​

​

tall73 said:​

The abuser who twists the Scripture, and it certainly is twisting to get from love your wives as Christ loves the church, to breaking bones, is also looking at just the part he wants, and not the part that rebukes him.​

​

tall73 said:​

And since it has been continually noted that Ephesians 5 does not in fact accept, endorse, or in any way allow violence, as spelled out by the text, my view does not accept violence, or endorse it in any way.​

You responded


Paidiske said:​

​

That has never been my claim. I have never said you endorse such a thing.​

I am not responsible for their positions. I am responsible for what I have stated.

And smearing me again and again with the actions of others will not actually make up for your lack of explanation of what the text says.

 

[tall73]

You might say, "but that's not what I mean by headship," but every time you argue for headship, you argue for wifely submission, you argue for a husband's right to make decisions and control, those are the arguments you bolster. That's the stream of thinking you legitimise.

I am responsible for what I said about headship, and I specifically have argued for imitating Christ, not for beatings, rape, and all the rest. And everyone reading the thread knows I have denounced such.

Abuses by people who twist Scripture do not undermine Scriptural principles.

I am not saying that what God ordains is abuse. I am saying that when we see abusive forms of behaviour, and people excuse them as God-ordained, they have misunderstood what God ordains.

God ordained headship, as spelled out in the texts. And it is to imitate Christ. And since you have ZERO statements of me saying that I excuse rape, beatings, etc. and that is nothing like the actions of Christ, that is simply a strawman.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes or no, was Paul correct in singling out Adam as the "one man" through whom sin and death came into the world?

I don't see that as a yes or no question.

Do I even acknowledge? We already discussed for pages physical beating and "breaking of bones. " Yet, you bring it out again.

What I don't see you acknowledging is the direct relationship between the arguments you're making, and the harm done by so many. It's as if you think you can argue for headship, and then claim that has nothing to do with the harms done in the name of headship.

I am not responsible for their positions. I am responsible for what I have stated.

More than that. You're responsible for the way your statements can be read or used by others. And I think your statements leave far, far too much leeway for various abuses.

 

[Paidiske]

God ordained headship, ...And it is to imitate Christ.

And I would argue that the imitation of Christ does not allow for a husband to control his wife.

 

[tall73]

In your humble opinion.

No, it is not just opinion. I pointed out a specific argument regarding the text. You didn't try to address it, and have said you won't.

This is a simile:

​

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

​

Ephesians 5:24 24 Ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ χριστῷ, οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί.​

Your view of it destroys the simile.

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

You admit the church submits to Christ. But then your interpretation changes the second part of the simile to its opposite.

 

[Paidiske]

No, it is not just opinion.

Yes, it is. Egalitarian Christianity is well-grounded in Scripture at every point. That I don't feel the desire or need to rehash every point of it here doesn't mean that's not true.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

​

Yes or no, was Paul correct in singling out Adam as the "one man" through whom sin and death came into the world?
​

I don't see that as a yes or no question.

So Paul was both correct and incorrect?

 

[Paidiske]

So Paul was both correct and incorrect?

To answer that properly would take an exegetical essay on Genesis, and then another on what Paul was writing.

Was Paul making a valid and important point? Yes. Do I agree with the interpretation you're placing on one aspect of what he wrote? No.

 

[tall73]

Yes, it is. Egalitarian Christianity is well-grounded in Scripture at every point. That I don't feel the desire or need to rehash every point of it here doesn't mean that's not true.

Your choosing not to defend your view is your own tactical decision. I will still point out that you have broken the simile. You turn the second part of the simile into its opposite:

Ephesians 5:24 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. ​

 

[tall73]

To answer that properly would take an exegetical essay on Genesis, and then another on what Paul was writing.

Was Paul making a valid and important point? Yes. Do I agree with the interpretation you're placing on one aspect of what he wrote? No.

What was the valid and important point he was making?

 

[Paidiske]

I will still point out that you have broken the simile.

I have put the simile in a wider canonical context.

What was the valid and important point he was making?

Theological recapitulation. His point was fundamentally about Christ; that Christ is able to put right what is wrong with humanity and the cosmos.

 

[atpollard]

And I would argue that the imitation of Christ does not allow for a husband to control his wife.

My wife’s uncle would ask the young men that called upon his daughters “What is your plan to present her blameless before Christ?”

That was the Biblical mandate for a husband if one is going to really accept that passage about Wives honoring their husbands as the church honors Christ. The Biblical call is one of subordination of roles without any inferiority of the person. It is a model where the GREATEST, lay down their lives to “serve and protect” those entrusted to their care. Where the WELFARE of the wife (her total well being, not merely her material needs) are the priority of the Husband. That is what drives his decisions and his actions.

The greatest book (should be required reading for Husbands to be) is Hosea. It is all about a man loving his wife … no matter what the personal cost … and doing WHATEVER it takes to redeem her. That is the “Job Description” and if you (as a man) are not resolved to the task … then stay single. Marriage is HARD. One needs to be in it for the long haul and through the tough times.

 

[atpollard]

Should wives submit to husbands? Should wives and husbands be equal partners?

Yes, to both.

Are the quarterback and receiver equal players on a Football Team?YES.
Do ALL the members of the team obey the quarterback when he calls the play that they will run? YES.

So the players are all equal and the quarterback has a role that places him in a position of authority that the other members of the team are obligated to submit to. Without that LEADERSHIP and SUBMISSION, the efforts of the TEAM will be diminished.

So, too, with the family. There are roles. These roles come with an obligation to exert authority and an obligation to submit to that authority for the good of the Family.

The family models the church (and the church models the family). Is the Pastor “more saved” than the other members? Yet do the members have an obligation to obey those in authority? How would service go if all 100 people started shouting every service to see who would be giving the sermon or what song everyone would sing next? Why should one expect a family to function any better if the members all demand that THEY are in charge.

God placed the responsibility and the blame on the Husband. When EVE sinned, God went and confronted ADAM first … because it was Adam’s job to be in charge. Eve received consequences for her actions, but Adam received the curse. Why? Because God placed Adam in charge so the responsibility rested with Adam. That doesn’t change. Challenging the quarterback just hurts the team. EVERY TIME.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

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.

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

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?

I don’t even understand what the child has to do with it.
Of course, anyone can do anything not only towards a child, but also towards pets, defenseless beggars on the street. There can be many different sins against third parties, and against God, and against one’s neighbor, on the part of the husband and on the part of the wife.

For example, one priest said that an indication for divorce could be the transition of a spouse from Christianity to some kind of heresy (Muslim or Freemasonry).

 

[ValeriyK2022]

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.

But the wife can:
1) misunderstand the text;
2) to interpret it according to your passions: to find, for example, how Rebekah and Jacob deceived Isaac and begin to deceive their husband.
If there are no authorities for her, but she is the highest authority for herself, then will she really fulfill the will of God or will she fulfill her will, following her passions?

The correct situation is for her to obey her husband if she cannot object according to Scripture. If she thinks that her husband is hurting her, then she tells him. If the husband does not listen, then she tells to authoritative Christians (Christians who are an authority for both her and her husband). If the husband does not listen to them, then she tells to the church, that is, to the presbyter.
The husband should the same way. (Matthew 18:16-17)
And if everyone interprets Scripture himself, then this will lead to war and the winner will be not the one who is right, but the one who is stronger or more cunning.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Control is not always a bad thing. If a wife sees that her husband is starting to drink a lot or secretly use drugs, then controlling his behavior can save both the husband and the family. In the same way, if a husband sees that his wife is secretly doing something that displeases God, then control can save both the wife and the husband. Control within reasonable limits is needed. There cannot be complete permissiveness in marriage. Because family members in marriage are responsible for each other.

Control is not abuse. Abuse is depriving a person of the resources he needs for good deeds. And depriving him of the opportunity to do evil is not bad.

But the one who controls must live according to his conscience: do not lie, do not seek his own, do not manipulate.