Created to Be His Help-Meet

[rosalind110]

mbams said:-
I don’t believe biblical submission between spouses is oppressive. But when one spouse does something to gain submission from the other, that is indeed oppressive, as well as manipulative, and far removed from the true spirit of yielding to each other that I believe the Bible is really talking about for marriage

I do see your point, but, as a matter of interest, on what does the interpretation of 'manipulation' or 'oppression' depend? Do you feel that this is something that some people are so close to that they cannot see the wood for the trees and that they therefore need a little outside help in order to get a clear picture of what they have become too involved in, or does someone actually have to feel oppressed and manipulated for it to be the case?

Best wishes,

Ros

 

[Cordy]

Rosalind, I am not responding to all the month old posts you are digging up because I have no desire to dig up them up myself and see what the context of discussion was whey they were posted, and they have absolutely no relevance to what this thread is discussing at the moment. I will, however, respond to this following post, because it was in response to something I said yesterday.

I agree with the sentiment of love your wives by Christ's example, but this passage still clearly shows a 'chain of command' in the context of marriage, in that it speaks not of the direct communion of a woman/wife with God, but of her relationship with God through her husband's headship of the marriage. I do not believe that this precludes her from having a direct and separate personal relationship with God, but defines guidelines for this in the marriage situation.

The passage does not say anything about a chain of command. There is nothing “chain of commandish” there unless you read the word “head” to having military implications. Since I do not see marriage compared to the military anywhere else, and actually the opposite (selfless mutual love and respect while trying to avoid having “command” over the other), I strongly doubt we are to gain such a strange interpretation of the Bible.

If a woman has a direct and separate personal relationship with God, then there is absolutely no need for her to have to go through a fallible human vessel to know the perfect and holy Creator that she is supposed to know on her own anyway. I think that is just plain wrong! The Bible is clear that we are to hate our spouses in comparison to the commitment and love we have for God. What confusion would be caused when a woman has to try to choose her alliance to the supposed “marriage priest” or the God she knows and has a relationship with directly.

 

[rosalind110]

ProfessorMom


"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to mbams again"

I have seen this before, but I do not understand what it means in the context of the forum. Is there an explanation somewhere in the forum's instructions? I am not yet familiar with how things work here as it is quite different from the Yahoo and MSN forums that I am used to.

Thanks for your help.

Ros

 

[rosalind110]

Mbams said:-

Rosalind, I am not responding to all the month old posts you are digging up because I have no desire to dig up them up myself and see what the context of discussion was whey they were posted, and they have absolutely no relevance to what this thread is discussing at the moment. I will, however, respond to this following post, because it was in response to something I said yesterday.

My apologies if I have somehow breached the accepted process for conducting discussions here on CF. I did not realise that this was a problem because this particular discussion was originally very active in October, then went quiet for several weeks before it was revived out of the blue by someone else some three weeks ago, at which time people seemed perfectly happy to continue with discussions which had not been active for several weeks. I must admit also that I was under the impression that the subjects I selected for comment were exclusively those that were under discussion most recently, even though I did quote (and forgot, as you quite rightly pointed out, to attribute) from some of the earliest contextual posts in the process. This was because, as is often the case, I was catching up with some general reading here on CF when I had a bit more time than usual, and I therefore discovered and read read the whole thread in one go. That said, I do understand why you would not wish to sift back through so many posts to recall the context of things posted months ago and I realise that others may feel the same.

On the subject now in hand, I still feel that the wording of Ephesians 5 as we know it, in relation to obligations in marriage does, perhaps unintentionally, or because of poor translation, imply that there is a kind of three stage system ('chain of command', was probably a bad choice of words) involved in the process. That is:-

Obligation of wives to submit to their husband in everything

Obligation of husbands to love their wives and treat them as they would
their own bodies

Status of spouses in the marriage:- The husband is the head of the wife
as Christ is the head of the church

Regarding the third point, please don't think that I am challenging you on this, because I genuinely would like to understand, while I agree that my 'military style' metaphor was an inappropriate one, why is a husband referred to in these terms, that is as, the 'head' of the wife if this is not the case?

These were just my interpretations of those verses in the bible and I do realise that my theology may well be at fault, which is why I hoped that people would respond, as have you, with their own feelings on the matter and the reasons behind their interpretations. One set of comments that I found of particular interest were those of John NZ who had some new angles on cuiltural and language differences which I felt might explain some of the ambiguities in the text. Unfortunately though, chances are that, like you, he will not want to go delving through old posts to find his earlier comments so, as you and some others say, I have quite likely missed the 'moment'.

Thank you for your thoughtful response in any case. Even if no-one else responds, it has given me some useful food for thought.

I hope that nothing I have written here will cause offense, as I seem to have an unfortunate talent for doing that.

Best regards.

Ros

 

[B®ent]

Tell me, where does the Bible instruct husbands to submit unto their wives? If the scripture is as clear-cut, then surely such a verse would exist.

 

[rosalind110]

Tell me, where does the Bible instruct husbands to submit unto their wives? If the scripture is as clear-cut as you believe, then surely such a verse would exist.

Regards,
Restformationist

Forgive me for butting in here when it was not me of whom your question was asked, but I think I have the answer.

Usually when Christians refer to mutual submission, they are speaking of Ephesians 5, Verse 21, which is at the end of a list of instructions about how Christians, regardless of gender or marital status, should behave. Verse 21, which I think instructs us that as Christians we are responsible to one another for our actions, reads:-


"21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ"


I have to agree that this verse highlights the fact that we all have an obligation to submit to, and be responsible to, our fellow Christians, but since responsibility and accountablility always comes with any type of leadership, I personally see it as a part of leadership in marriage, but not as an overriding factor to Paul's guidelines for, 'Wives and Husbands' in Ephesians 5, 22 to 24.


"22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything"

I expect that, if I leave it at that, people will say that I have missed the key part of these instructions out in order to prove my point, so I will therefore include the section where Paul outlines the corresponding husbandly responsibility in Ephesians 5, 25 to 33, which I believe highlights the 'responsibility' message in verse 21 but still does not override the separate marriage staus quo as set down by Paul:-


25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


God Bless,
Ros

 

[B®ent]

I have to agree that this verse highlights the fact that we all have an obligation to submit to, and be responsible to, our fellow Christians, but since responsibility and accountablility always comes with any type of leadership, I personally see it as a part of leadership in marriage, but not as an overriding factor to Paul's guidelines for, 'Wives and Husbands' in Ephesians 5, 22 to 24.

Agreed. Like you, I believe verse 21 outlines general submission of one believer to another. Why isn't there a specific commandment for husbands to submit to their wives? If the Bible does not teach specific roles for men and women respectfully then surely such a verse would exist.

 

[LiberatedChick]

Whilst the word submit may not be used towards men (well except in verse 21) I believe that verses 25-33 are still talking about husbands submitting. The description they give about husbands behaviour towards their wives...when that and the instructions to the wife are carried out you get mutual submission imo.

I've seen this in my own marriage where what started off as my submission actually kicked started mutual submission. My husband follows what is outlined in verses 25-33, he loves me, gives himself up for me and the way this comes out is through serving me as I serve him.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but please remember this is not a debate forum. If you'd like to start a debate on this subject matter, please start a new thread in the Discussion and Debate section.

Please also remember that you are not to directly to another member, that can be reserved for pms.

2.2 You will not debate in forums that are not part of the “Discussion and Debate”, “Congregation” or “Theology” categories. Debate is defined as to engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

2.5 You will not start a thread or post a reply directed at another member. Replies must be directed at another member’s post, not the individual. Individual communication should be done via PM.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Cordy]

I think LiberatedChick outlined it wonderfully.

I hope that nothing I have written here will cause offense, as I seem to have an unfortunate talent for doing that.

I can’t speak for other, but I am not easily offended, so please don’t think you have offended me. I was just explaining why I wasn’t going to be responding to all the old posts. If you think you have missed the discussion on this topic that was covered in many of the early posts, don’t worry. If you stick around the marriage ministries long enough, you will see the topic reemerge again and again.

On the subject now in hand, I still feel that the wording of Ephesians 5 as we know it, in relation to obligations in marriage does, perhaps unintentionally, or because of poor translation, imply that there is a kind of three stage system ('chain of command', was probably a bad choice of words) involved in the process.

First, I want to make it clear that I do not purport to have all the answers. What I am sharing is simply what I have gained from studying so far. I am simply one human trying to grasp the Truth, and this is simply my understanding right now on the journey to seeking it.

Regarding the passage in Ephesians 5 that you were posting about. We read it with our language and punctuation and infer meaning from this format. But we must remember that it was not written like this in the original language. When Paul wrote this passage, the portions on submission were part of a greater sentence writen in a particular language and grammer structure, and the reader would have known how to interpret the phrase accordingly. Basically, the sentence begins by telling us to be filled with the spirit, and then lists various ways we are to do so. It is as though being filled with the spirit is the umbrella of the sentence, and then the rest of it fits under it. Submitting to one another is a way we act when filled with the spirit. Now, the what-is-now verses that follow the point of submission are still part of that same phrase, which informs us that Paul is explaining how to submit to one another. They are under the “submission” umbrella, if you will. We know this, for example, because it does not say “wives submit”. It just says “wives to your husbands” (the word “submit” is absent). But we know it is talking about submission because it is all in the same phrase, and follows the Greek language structure to do so. In the same way, we know that the message to husbands is also under the same umbrella, explaining how they are to submit to their wives. Here is an idea of how we would read it in the original language.

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery, instead, be filled with the Spirit
--speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit.
--sing and make music from your heart to the Lord,
--always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
--Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
-----Wives to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
-----Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless in this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies he who loves his wife loves himself after all, people have never hated their own bodies, but they feed and care for them, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body

I am presently away from home at the moment, so I don’t have my resources with me, and can’t be sure that that is exactly where this sentence ends. So I am not clear if it continues after where I stopped or not. Anyway, see here that Paul is outlining how to be filled with the spirit. One of the ways we are to be filled is by submitting to one another. This is to all believers (hence men are to submit to all believers [including their wives], just like women). Paul then takes that point and explains how this submission is to take place in marriage. Since the message to both husbands and wives is under that, we know he is talking about submission in marriage. Just as he doesn’t have to include the word submit to wives here, he doesn’t have to use the word “submit” again to direct husbands either. In the original language, since both the message to husbands and wives is under the heading of submission, it is a given that that is what he is describing.

 

[rosalind110]

Thank you for your response. Since I am aware that there are certain flaws, related both to difficulties in accurately relating some words in the original text to those in modern language, and to the contemporary influence of cultural and social views, but do not know enough about these factors to quantify them, this was exactly the type of explanation I was looking for.

If it okay, I will ask some further questions on the subject in relation to this and other passages in the bible that seem to be directed at the submission of wives to their husbands and query whether there are similar quirks of translation in these passages also.

First could I just ask for clarification on one section of what you have already told us? I entirely agree with you that the first part of Ephesians 5 is directed at guidance as to how a Christian should live his or her life, and I think that the last phrase, in which we are told as Christians to 'Submit to one another' does apply to all Christians and isn't specific to gender or marital status, but I am interested to know whether the original text of that phase is the same or different from the one that accurately translates:-

"Wives to your own husbands as you do to the Lord"

If so, it would change the phrase, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ", making it something like, "To one another out of reverence for Christ". I am not sure whether this would actually make any difference in terms of the context in which it is used, but it does bear some consideration and thought.

I have referenced the other passages in the bible that also appear to advocate husbandly leadership and wifely submission below, and would be genuinely interested to know whether the same slight but very important inaccuracies apply to the translation of these. I do understand that you may not be able to address this immediately, but would very much appreciate your input on the matter whenever you can give it.

Colossians 3: 18
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"

Genesis 3:16
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Titus 2:5 (of wives)
"to be subject to their husbands"

1 Peter 3:1
"Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,"

"1 Peter 3:5
For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands"

Many thanks for your help.

Ros

 

[Cordy]

... but I am interested to know whether the original text of that phase is the same or different from the one that accurately translates:-

"Wives to your own husbands as you do to the Lord"

If so, it would change the phrase, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ", making it something like, "To one another out of reverence for Christ".

I don’t really understand what you are asking here. If you could clarify, that would be great.

I have referenced the other passages in the bible that also appear to advocate husbandly leadership and wifely submission below, and would be genuinely interested to know whether the same slight but very important inaccuracies apply to the translation of these.

The passages do discuss submission, but I do not see any reference to this submission being unilateral from the wife, nor the husband having unilateral command over the wife.

Yes, the Bible does discuss wives submitting in the passages you mentioned. I am a big proponent of submission in marriage. Since all believers are called to submit, I don’t understand why women would be exempt to this. My point is simply that men are not exempt, either. In that way, I have difficulty seeing a chain of command. We can’t simply pluck out the women’s side of submission and infer that the man is the opposite to that – the commander or boss, or what have you. We have to read in context, and truly see what is being said. Let's take the following passage that you mentioned, for instance:

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

You quoted the first part, but not the latter, which I think makes a difference. Yup, wives are to submit and yield to their husbands. Makes sense. We are to submit to everyone. Why would we forget that kind of love in our own homes? Husbands are to love their wives and not be harsh with them. If one wants to be legalistic about this, there is always room to do so -- *male voice* “Hold on here, honey, I have to think before I wash the dishes for you, because although it is an act of love, which I am commanded to do, it is also an act of submission, and therefore, I feel crossing, the line. I think it would therefore be unbiblical to love you in this way, because I am also submitting”. Most of us, of course, realize that that kind of attitude is unbalanced, unrealistic and missing the point. In the reality of marriage, submission and love are parts of each other. I think the only way we can divide the two up is if we are trying to find a way to justify separate roles and chains of command. I think to do so is taking the word beyond the spirit and to the letter.

The concept of mutually giving to each other without focusing on upholding a power hierarchy is also apparent in other passages, such as:

The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

Here is an example of mutual submission and mutual consent. The husband does not have command over the marriage, nor make all the decisions, like when they will have sex. It is a result of mutual consent. Also notice that the husband and wife yield (or submit, if you like) their bodies to each other. Just as the wife gives herself to her husband, the husband has equally given himself to his wife. Wow. I just think that is so beautiful!

 

[Cordy]

Genesis 3:16
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

I just wanted to note that unlike the other passages you mentioned, I do not think this one is about submission or advocating submission. I believe it is talking about the reality of the fallen world Adam and Eve were entering. Just as we now have sin, pain, and death, we also have men ruling over women. We see this today, and I believe always will, as we will always have racism, war and other issues relating to ruling over one another. But just as we wouldn’t fight to uphold sin, pain and death, we shouldn’t fight to uphold patriarchy. It is a reality. We have to deal with it, but it is far from an ideal we should seek to attain. Actually, like other results of a fallen world, I think it is something we need to work against.

 

[B®ent]

I just wanted to note that unlike the other passages you mentioned, I do not think this one is about submission or advocating submission. I believe it is talking about the reality of the fallen world Adam and Eve were entering. Just as we now have sin, pain, and death, we also have men ruling over women. We see this today, and I believe always will, as we will always have racism, war and other issues relating to ruling over one another. But just as we wouldn’t fight to uphold sin, pain and death, we shouldn’t fight to uphold patriarchy. It is a reality. We have to deal with it, but it is far from an ideal we should seek to attain. Actually, like other results of a fallen world, I think it is something we need to work against.

Are you suggesting patriarchy is a sin?

If so, are you saying the only Biblical marriage is YOUR way?

 

[Johnnz]

Are you suggesting patriarchy is a sin?

If so, are you saying the only Biblical marriage is YOUR way?

I can't answer your second question.

Is patriarchy a sin? Yes, if we take the one of the basic meanings of the word, "missing the mark". It falls short of God's intentions for us.

At the time of Jesus and Paul patriarchy was the norm in Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures, with some local variations of degree. Women were considered inferior. They were seldom educated. Some debated that women had souls. A devout Jewish man would pary each day, offering thanks that God had not made him a woman. Children were also strictly controlled.

Into this environment comes Jesus. He relates freely to women. He includes them in his teaching. Some become part of his trusted followers. Imagine the gossip.

From Paul's letters we learn that many women were involved in the life and ministry of the church, quite contrary to surrounding cultural values.

In addition, society was stratified rigidly by class. Essentially, you stayed where you were born. Paul saw that God's kingdom heralded a new social order, where the old barriers and distinctions of class, race and gender no longer applied. As with Jesus, children were also important.

It is inconceivable to me that Paul would have understood just how radical the Gospel message was, and left in place a major, oppressive component based on gender. Previous threads pointing out that Eph 5:21 is connected to the next chapter should be noted carefully. Paul did not put in the chapter divisions. Sometimes the translators got it wrong. There is no hierarchy in the NT church, only ministry based on servanthood at every level of the Christian community.

John
NZ

 

[luvmyhubby]

Here is an example of mutual submission and mutual consent. The husband does not have command over the marriage, nor make all the decisions, like when they will have sex. It is a result of mutual consent. Also notice that the husband and wife yield (or submit, if you like) their bodies to each other. Just as the wife gives herself to her husband, the husband has equally given himself to his wife. Wow. I just think that is so beautiful!

I think you make some very good points here. It is indeed beautiful that just as the wife gives herself to her husband, the husband has equaly given himself to his wife. Out of curiosity, I looked up the word "submit" in the dictionary:
"To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another." As I had stated in an earlier post, we all submit to some kind of authority in our society - traffic laws, government regulations.... I am not sure that submitting as a wife means that a husband has command over a marriage - certainly that is a partnership. Even though I live in submission to my husband, who, for my own safety and for the peace of our marriage has set down some boundaries for me, it does not mean that he alone makes all the decisions and has all the power. For example, I often seduce him, making me the one to decide when we will have sex. I am the one who plans the meals because I am the one who is good at such things. He may tell me that he would like to have a certain dish for dinner, or I may ask him if there is anything he is in the mood for, but he never "commands" that I make something, or tells me what we are to have with our meals (lame example, I know - but I am trying to keep it simple). He does control the money - it keeps us from going bankrupt. But if either of us wants to make a large purchase, we do discuss it - he does not arbitrarily go out and spend thousands of dollars just because he can. When we built our house we discussed what we wanted. When it came time to decorate, he gave me the power in that because I am the one who has a knack for such things. Buying cars is his thing, but he discusses things such as color and interior with me first. In this way I guess you could say that we are submitting to each other. But I think that being a submissive wife goes deeper than that. It seems to me that the examples I have mentioned speak more of mutual respect rather than mutual submission. I think of how I submit to the Lord, or try to submit to the Lord. I attempt to follow His commands and live as He wants me to live. My husband, as most men are, is the more logical part of our union. I run on emotions. It makes sense for him to have some command over me - not necessarily our marriage - but me as an individual, just like a manager has command over a subordinate or a professor has command over a student. In a college setting, even if a student is older than a professor, the professor still has command over that student - telling the student when assignments are due and keeping order in a class by not allowing the student to be disruptive. Just the same in my marriage, my husband knows my weaknesses and will tell me what he expects me to do on a given day. He is most respectful. He does not bark out commands like a drill sergeant would, yet he does give me "assignments" and direction, therefore keeping order in our marriage. Again, this is not to be in command of our marriage or to make all the decisions unilaterally, but to help me as a person and, in so doing, help our relationship run smoothly. Don't know if I explained it well - but I hope it makes some kind of sense.

 

[B®ent]

Whilst the word submit may not be used towards men (well except in verse 21) I believe that verses 25-33 are still talking about husbands submitting. The description they give about husbands behaviour towards their wives...when that and the instructions to the wife are carried out you get mutual submission imo.

I've seen this in my own marriage where what started off as my submission actually kicked started mutual submission. My husband follows what is outlined in verses 25-33, he loves me, gives himself up for me and the way this comes out is through serving me as I serve him.

Wouldn't you agree, however, that husbands love their wives most when they also love the Lord?

 

[luvmyhubby]

In my opinion, this statement is completely laughable. There is absolutely no correlation between a professor/student relationship and that of husband/wife involved in DD, or any marriage, for that matter.

The former is strictly pedagogical, the latter familial. The former is, and must remain, nonsexual, the latter must be sexual. Any sexual relationship would jeopardize the integrity of the educational process. A sexual relationship belongs in a marriage.

There is an inherent unequal power in the professor/student relationship which may heighten the vulnerability of the student and the student must be protected from coercion. That is not always the case in some marriages.

A professor does not look at his/her position as though they had any "command" over their student, no matter what age the student may be. The professor is strictly a mentor, educator, and evaluator. Often, a student will have a certain professor for only a semester. The professor/student relationship is not an intimate relationship, although a professor and student may certainly come to know one another. Hopefully our marriages last much longer than a semester and are intimate.

To put it in simple terms - the student is expected to "Grow Up," when they enter college! They are responsible for completing assigned work and for searching out tutoring or help when needed. By the way, the assignments are generally written on the various syllabi, not handed out on a daily basis. A professor does not command a student to complete any assignment and a student need not anticipate a spanking or other punishment if they neglect assignment.

A student has the freedom to walk out of the class without recourse and/or to drop a course as she/he chooses. As for disrupting a class, any student who looks to her/his professor to keep him/her quiet is immature. Lastly, the number of students who disrupt a college lecture or classroom is close to zero.

Since I was just discussing Sherlock Holmes with my youngest, I'll end with a bit of bad humor.

It's college, not elementary my dear watson!! And it certainly isn't marriage!!

Since I did not mention DD at all, it appears my analogies were completely misunderstood. I was not comparing college/professor relationships to marriage, I was simply trying to point out that there are areas in which everyone has to submit to someone. And since I am currently taking classes, and have instructors who are younger than I am, I used that as an example. Perhaps "command" was the wrong word. A professor has a certain amount of authority. He/she can dock a student for not getting the work done on time or for not showing up for class regularly. Every single syllabus I get outlines "rules" that the students must follow - including how many unexcused absences are permitted before a grade is lowered. One of my professors tells all of her classes her policy on plagerism, complete with an example of a student who was not permitted to graduate because she took information from a website and pasted it to a paper she was writing and turned it in as her own work. And believe it or not, many college students do not know how to show respect to a prof when a class is being taught. That being said, I will repeat again that the main point of my post was what submission means to me - that being that my husband gives me direction and tells me what his expectations are (ie: he wants me to shampoo the carpets tomorrow, and he wants me to try to have it done before he comes home from work). I honestly attempted to word that post in such a way that it would not create a lot of confrontation. Apparently I failed.

 

[LiberatedChick]

Wouldn't you agree, however, that husbands love their wives most when they also love the Lord?

I fail to see what my husbands beliefs have to do with this...I actually wonder if you're trying to use this as some strange kind of attack. But nevermind...since you ask, no I wouldn't agree with that. If I agreed with that I might as well say "Christians are much more loving people than non-Christians" and I know that's not true. The ability to love is not limited to those who believe in Christianity.

Now, I've said before that I like these verses....

1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

...and there's a reason I like 'em.

He's never read the verses on submission in the bible and I've never spoken of it. Yet, he's following it. He loves me like himself, gives himself up for me, serves me as I serve him....yet he's never read that page and thought "oh, yeah this is what I should be doing in marriage...this is how I should love my wife". He didn't need to read it, he saw me doing it...he saw me submitting to him, he saw me changing and he liked what he saw. He then decided he wanted to change too, he decided he wanted to be a better person. So the reason I like the above verses...because they're soooo true. He doesn't need to read the bible and doesn't need to believe in order to be the most loving person I've ever met.

 

[rosalind110]

In my opinion, this statement is completely laughable. There is absolutely no correlation between a professor/student relationship and that of husband/wife involved in DD, or any marriage, for that matter.
The former is strictly pedagogical, the latter familial. The former is, and must remain, nonsexual, the latter must be sexual. Any sexual relationship would jeopardize the integrity of the educational process. A sexual relationship belongs in a marriage.

I would have thought that would depend on whether you were of the opinion that everything involved in marriage is sexual. My own feeling is that marriage is a coming together of loving minds, spirits and bodies in the sight of God and that therefore the sexual aspect is only one part of the equation. Indeed, in some marriages, physical problems preclude sexual activities altogether, but that doesn't mean that the participants love and cherish each other any the less or that the marriage is any less valid. If you are in agreement that there are aspects of marriage which are unconnected to sex, then I don't think that it is 'laughable' or inappropriate to draw the kind of comparison that luvmyhubby has drawn.

There is an inherent unequal power in the professor/student relationship which may heighten the vulnerability of the student and the student must be protected from coercion. That is not always the case in some marriages.

I think that most marriages, are conducted on a largely equal footage, with accountability and responsibility on both sides, but, as in every other type of relationship, the potential for things to get out of balance is present in the marriage situation in the same way as it is present in the teacher/pupil relationship.

A professor does not look at his/her position as though they had any "command" over their student, no matter what age the student may be. The professor is strictly a mentor, educator, and evaluator. Often, a student will have a certain professor for only a semester. The professor/student relationship is not an intimate relationship, although a professor and student may certainly come to know one another. Hopefully our marriages last much longer than a semester and are intimate.

A professor or teacher may not look to 'command' his/her student, but he/she does have powers of direction in certain areas of a student's life even if that student is the same age or older than her/him. He/she can require of a student that he/she attends a certain mumber of classes, produces work of a certain standard and by certain deadlines and exhibits a certain standard of behaviour while in his/her classes. Conformity or non-conformity can be rewarded by good grades or penalised by bad ones.

To put it in simple terms - the student is expected to "Grow Up," when they enter college! They are responsible for completing assigned work and for searching out tutoring or help when needed. By the way, the assignments are generally written on the various syllabi, not handed out on a daily basis. A professor does not command a student to complete any assignment and a student need not anticipate a spanking or other punishment if they neglect assignment.

It is true that the ultimate responsibility to manage and produce the work at the required standard and at the right times is in the hands of the student, but the professor (or education authority) is the one who plans the syllabus and sets the standards to which the student must aspire. In the event that the student does not meet these requirements, he or she is effectively penalised by the professor or education authorities by a failure to attain the grades that he or she requires in order to graduate.

A student has the freedom to walk out of the class without recourse and/or to drop a course as she/he chooses.

Although it is unlikely that a dedicated and loving wife would give up on a marriage in the same way that she might give up on a college course, there is an inbuilt understanding in most submission/discipline based marriages that the agreement must be consensual in all ways and at all times. By this understanding, if at any time she feels that the discipline aspect has crossed the line into something non-consensual and therefore abusive, she is free to withdraw her consent and close the door on this part of the arrangement. As such, it is rather similar to the way in which she might drop a particular course at college while leaving the rest of her life unchanged.

As for disrupting a class, any student who looks to her/his professor to keep him/her quiet is immature. Lastly, the number of students who disrupt a college lecture or classroom is close to zero.

Regardless of the fact that disruption of a college class is the action of an immature student and is a rare occurance, the fact remains that the professor still retains overall responsibility for the control, leadership and standards of hisor her class as long as there are students in it. As such, he/she also has the power to reward, penalise or remove students from his or her class as he/she sees fit and the students are therefore accountable to her/him.