Discussion of Submission- Trial Thread

[ValleyGal]

found something interesting regarding "submission"...

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/pdf/PowerandControl.pdf

I think this is why my post (post 97 in this thread) is so important. Submission is not something that should be "taken" by one spouse or the other. If it is, that is abuse of power.

Submissive relationships do not have to become imbalances of power or lead to abuse, which is also why I posted about trustworthiness in an earlier post. If someone is trustworthy, it is easy to submit because you know they are doing what is in your best interest, but if someone is not trustworthy, it becomes a challenge to submit and that is a foothold for abuse. But submission is not always about abuse...

Godly submission (Greek Theological Dictionary) describes it as internally motivated, something to be given, not taken and never forced. Forced submission is abuse. Taken submission is borderline abuse of power. But Jesus demonstrated his own willingness to submit to God for the sake of the body of believers - and he has proven himself trustworthy in that regard, making it easier for me as a believer to submit (willingly yield) to his will rather than to my own, for his benefit and glory rather than my own.

 

[mkgal1]

found something interesting regarding "submission"...

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/pdf/PowerandControl.pdf

If this discussion were to head in the typical direction, that concept would just be discredited as a "feminist ideology" or something to that effect (IOW.....demonized).

 

[ValleyGal]

If this discussion were to head in the typical direction, that concept would just be discredited as a "feminist ideology" or something to that effect (IOW.....demonized).

I disagree. On this thread and in the context of submission, I am discrediting it as abuse, which can apply to either men or women. Plenty of women abuse their husbands. Anyway, in this thread, it is not about submission, it belongs in its own thread about abuse....and is not connected to feminism except where men use those methods of abuse to oppress women - and like I said, that goes both ways. Women also abuse and oppress men, too.

 

[mkgal1]

I disagree. On this thread and in the context of submission, I am discrediting it as abuse, which can apply to either men or women. Plenty of women abuse their husbands. Anyway, in this thread, it is not about submission, it belongs in its own thread about abuse....and is not connected to feminism except where men use those methods of abuse to oppress women - and like I said, that goes both ways. Women also abuse and oppress men, too.

The concept (ideology) that I'm referring to is what RPD posted--the idea that an exploitation of the power dynamic is abuse.

This sentence doesn't make sense to me in your post: "I'm discrediting it as abuse". Are you speaking of the PDF RPD linked? Because that was (basically) a description of an abuse of power. Did you mean you're "labeling" it (the attachment RPD linked) as abuse?

I'm saying that what often happens in discussions like this is that that very concept will be discredited (written off---dismissed---smeared---tainted--not seen as valid because of what it's associated with) as a "feminist ideology" (and it's phrased that way, because in the traditional submission model---it's the woman that is assumed to not have "power"). IOW.....it can't apply to men being abused--because we aren't speaking of that kind of dynamic.

I'm confused why you don't see it as relevant. You've already mentioned that an assumption of privilege is entitlement, and entitlement chokes out genuine love. You also posted:

Submission is not something that should be "taken" by one spouse or the other. If it is, that is abuse of power.

I agree. That's also what that attachment is pointing out.

For some reason, I'm having a difficult time figuring out what people are disagreeing with.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

At one time, science said the world was flat, but the Bible describes it as an orb. Was science right then, too?

PW is talking about principles for living, not making theological warfare. She is entitled to hold a literalist view (if that is the case) and believe in biblical authority. There are perfectly reasonable and sound arguments for each of your points, but this is not the place or the thread to discuss them....this one is about submission.

HERE is what I believe a good marriage is founded upon (from Ephesians 5):

Instructions for Christian Households

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 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. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for 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] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


As one can clearly see, roles are outlined here. Wives, submit. Husbands, love. The two go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned.


This LINK gives a very good synopsis of what I believe about submission.


Even moreso, here's some good thoughts on the secular views from one of our synod theologians:

The world says headship is synonymous with being the boss and being superior to others in position and value. When Paul is writing to the Ephesians, however, he defines headship in terms of being given authority and responsibility for the physical and spiritual well being of your family. He specifically instructs husbands to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). The word here for love is “agape,” which means to give of yourself even for those who don’t deserve it. Christ died for us while we “were still sinners” (Romans 5:8). Jesus reprimands his disciples who were vying for a place in his kingdom, telling them that they were not to think they will be “regarded as rulers of the Gentiles [who] lord it over them . . . Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Mark 10:42,43).

Headship as God defines it is about loving and humble service. It includes authority from God and responsibility and accountability to God himself for those under the head. Jesus is, of course, the example: not only his death out of love for us but also his active responsibility to the Father for his disciples. Jesus’ high-priestly prayer on Maundy Thursday is an example of the responsibility for the disciples that goes along with the authority given (John 17:6-19).

Just as love and headship are distorted beyond recognition by the world around us, so are the words “helper” and “submission.” While the world paints them as secondary, inferior, and weak attributes, our God uses them in the opposite manner. “Helper” is also used to describe the Lord’s actions on behalf of mankind. “Submission” is what Jesus exemplified when he willingly set aside his rights as God and King and “humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8). There is nothing inferior or secondary about that!
​

 

[ValleyGal]

PW, I would like to hear your thoughts on Eph. 5:21 "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This verse is what we base our egalitarian approach to submission on, without absolving men of their "headship" role as one who initiates service, submission, sacrifice, reconciliation, tone of the home, etc. Whether a man is a born "leader" or not (and many are not), leadership skills are not necessary in order to fulfill this headship role. That's where I stand on this passage... I'd love to hear your thoughts on Eph. 5:21 and how it fits mutual submission with the ideas of love and "wifely" submission (which is more accurately translated to respect in English rather than "submit" in v. 22).

 

[mkgal1]

That's been my question though, Beckie. When I post about "enthusiastic agreement"......where both spouses have been able to lay out their opinions......needs.....desires....goals, etc (and have been truly *heard*)....then why the sense of disagreement?

I'd say that I generally don't disagree with in your last post.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

PW, I would like to hear your thoughts on Eph. 5:21 "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This verse is what we base our egalitarian approach to submission on, without absolving men of their "headship" role as one who initiates service, submission, sacrifice, reconciliation, tone of the home, etc. Whether a man is a born "leader" or not (and many are not), leadership skills are not necessary in order to fulfill this headship role. That's where I stand on this passage... I'd love to hear your thoughts on Eph. 5:21 and how it fits mutual submission with the ideas of love and "wifely" submission (which is more accurately translated to respect in English rather than "submit" in v. 22).

I think the verses following 21 expound on that whole idea.

Submission in marriage is NEVER supposed to be the husband simply saying "I'm the man, you're the wife, suck it up".

To clarify - when my husband needed to remind me of my position, it was not in that vein. Honestly, had we done what I wanted back then we'd probably be bankrupt. Long story - but anyway, the rebuke (which is biblical) was done in love and with respect.

I would disagree that being the head of the house does not require leadership skills, though...so I don't know that I can address that point accurately.

That's been my question though, Beckie. When I post about "enthusiastic agreement"......where both spouses have been able to lay out their opinions......needs.....desires....goals, etc (and have been truly *heard*)....then why the sense of disagreement?

I'd say that I generally don't disagree with in your last post.

Those aren't situations I've been talking about, though. That's how a conversation SHOULD go in any marriage - but they don't always go that way. There isn't always enthusiastic agreement.

Another example from my marriage - generally speaking. There are times when my husband and I disagree on something, like maybe a discipline method for one of our kids. We sit down and discuss it, respectfully. Now, my husband COULD do the wrong thing and use his headship to completely steamroll me. Notice I said that would be the WRONG thing to do! Instead, we both listen to each other. In the end, I still defer to what he says, even if I disagree with it. Truth be told, there have been a few cases where I've done that and he's been wrong (never with the kids though - fortunately we have not disagreed on that aspect of things for long) and it's been kinda fun saying "I told you so" in the spirit of love. That's another thing, too, that I've found in this marriage. We can tease each other over our faults and because we love and trust each other, we know that it is nothing more than that. I imagine some wives (or husbands) could easily get aggravated over the way we talk in their own marriage.

Being the head of the household doesn't mean he will be perfect, either.

 

[mkgal1]

There are times when my husband and I disagree on something, like maybe a discipline method for one of our kids. We sit down and discuss it, respectfully. Now, my husband COULD do the wrong thing and use his headship to completely steamroll me. Notice I said that would be the WRONG thing to do! Instead, we both listen to each other. In the end, I still defer to what he says, even if I disagree with it.

That's how I've understood your position to be all along.

I also think that's why this comment was brought into the conversation earlier: "There shouldn't ever be a point where one has the "final say" over another's objections." That also goes back to Hannah's mention of words and their definitions. The way I see that sentiment ("there shouldn't ever be a point where one has the 'final say' over another's objections") is that if the wife has expressed her disagreement---and that gets 'overruled'---that is the same as "over another's objections"....even if the wife willingly "gives in" (as you put it, "defers"). That's not the same as truly being "of the same mind".

The policy of mutual agreement actually compels a couple to get a little more creative (I think). If neither spouse is feeling warm and fuzzy about what's being offered as solutions so far.....they need to keep exploring. It's been good for my husband and myself <shrug>. We've come up with some solutions that we wouldn't have w/o the original dissatisfaction.

Anyway.....it's your prerogative to live your life the way you see fit. I just would appreciate the same respect.

Truth be told, there have been a few cases where I've done that and he's been wrong (never with the kids though - fortunately we have not disagreed on that aspect of things for long) and it's been kinda fun saying "I told you so" in the spirit of love.

Maybe it's just me.....but I can't really perceive that as much more than "vengeance" wrapped up in a pretty package (called, "the spirit of love"). Maybe I'm just too narrow-minded.

 

[mkgal1]

Some "food for thought":

1st Samuel 25

I believe, however, that the principal interest of the biblical author himself is properly theological, and that it is particularly directed to two related aspects of salvation history: Wisdom and Providence. This captivating story of David, Abigail, and Nabal examines these two theological concerns. I will concentrate attention on Abigail, the central and dominant persona dramatis of 1 Samuel 25.

Notwithstanding the conditions of that marriage, however, Abigail is not a woman to agonize over her fate. She is no hand-wringer. On the contrary, she is the very embodiment of the resourceful, energetic and &#8220;valiant wife&#8221; described in Proverbs 31:10&#8211;31: loving and patient, disciplined, hardworking and efficiently organized, wise and discerning, endowed with a gentle disposition and pleasant speech.

To save her household, therefore, Abigail goes out to meet the outraged David. Sadly, David is not far behind Nabal in his rashness of temper. Vowing an exorbitant retaliation for Nabal&#8217;s arrogant affront, he too is on the point of playing the Fool (cf. Proverbs 14:17). But then Abigail, acting as David&#8217;s own personal Lady Wisdom, comes to seek him out,7 giving the &#8220;soft answer that turneth away wrath&#8221; (5:1), instructing him not to &#8220;answer a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him&#8221; (26:4). As the personification of Wisdom on David&#8217;s behalf, Abigail &#8220;has prepared her meat and mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her maids, and she calls from the highest point of the city&#8221; (9:2f.).

In his hour of impending moral peril, then, David&#8217;s deliverance comes from receiving the instruction of Wisdom (Proverbs 15:32f.). He is thus rescued from an evil course of action that his anger had caused to seem proper (Proverbs 16:25; Ecclesiastes 7:9). The wise Abigail exhorts him to patience and restraint.8 She persuades him to abandon his foolish vow of blood-vengeance9 and to leave retribution to a provident God.

Thus rescued from the edge of destruction, David recognizes and praises Abigail as a woman of sense and discretion. The ultimate, decisive difference between David and Nabal is that the one will listen to Abigail&#8217;s exhortation and the other will not. The wise man gladly receives instruction and reproof; the fool does not.

Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-02-026-f#ixzz3JBaHJAad

...and another passage to consider:

But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.~Genesis 21:12

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Yes, no one is saying that submission means that the husband doesn't listen to his wife.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Anyway.....it's your prerogative to live your life the way you see fit. I just would appreciate the same respect.

I don't believe I've ever said YOU had to live your life a certain way.

I HAVE, however, maintained that I believe that marriages not built on the biblical principles aren't fulfilling their God-given roles. You are free to disagree with that, of course, just as I am free to express that belief.

 

[HannahT]

I think the God-given Roles part is where people get tripped up too. It can mean all kinds of strange things depending on the group that is preaching on it.

On the other hand, it could mean the same thing to the majority of believers - and yet we would never know it by the way debates go at times.

When my oldest was much younger a friend of her's from school invited her to church with her. I personally find it good to go and see how other faith's practice, and experience it at times.

She went to that church with her best pair of slacks, and very nice blouse, dress shoes, etc. She was more than modest by our standards, or her father wouldn't have allowed her out of the house. lol!

The women at her church told her that she was immodest, because she wears slacks. Her friend wasn't the type to wear dresses or shirts all the time - or we would have made another choice before she left home.

They felt any pair of pants was immodest, and when my child disagreed with them - and she was accused of worshipping pagan Gods. The problem is she didn't know what 'pagan' was, and so she wasn't sure how insulted she was supposed to be.

To me? Its those types of extremes people need to be speaking out against, because of the divisive tone and approach.

Sadly, what I see instead? Many of today's 'celebrity' pastors tell you that they just 'mis spoke', and a host of other excuses for them. You send a message that rebukes are for the secular, and not within the fold - which isn't biblical at all.

Honestly, I find that is the reason many people that wonder about faith don't go as far as they would. You have those that have tons of backbone to dream up all kinds of wried circumstances that the 'world' does regularly (or so we have been told), but when it comes to nutters? They are enabled, and people make excuses for them. Its sends out the wrong message.

I may do my marriage differently than others, but we are fulfilling the principals we drawn from scripture. I have no problem with people doing a bit different, because we are all custom and wonderfully made! Besides, life would be boring if everything was the same. lol! Spicing it up our own way makes life so interesting! It neat to watch, and awesome to see.

 

[Hetta]

I don't believe I've ever said YOU had to live your life a certain way.

I HAVE, however, maintained that I believe that marriages not built on the biblical principles aren't fulfilling their God-given roles. You are free to disagree with that, of course, just as I am free to express that belief.

My marriage is built on biblical principles but there are many other scriptures that pertain to love and marriage than just one, including Eph 5:21. That's the one that my dh and I put at the center. Submitting one unto the other. There are a lot of others of course, in fact fetishizing one scripture to a high extent could be perceived to be idolatry.

There are also of course a lot of scriptures about divorce and remarriage. Interesting that those are given a pass and this one particular scripture is put at the top of the pile. I wonder if those who are divorced and remarried are entirely pleasing to God. Or is that just interpretation?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

My marriage is built on biblical principles but there are many other scriptures that pertain to love and marriage than just one, including Eph 5:21. That's the one that my dh and I put at the center. Submitting one unto the other. There are a lot of others of course, in fact fetishizing one scripture to a high extent could be perceived to be idolatry.

There are also of course a lot of scriptures about divorce and remarriage. Interesting that those are given a pass and this one particular scripture is put at the top of the pile. I wonder if those who are divorced and remarried are entirely pleasing to God. Or is that just interpretation?

Can you explain what you mean "given a pass"? I know *we* don't give them a pass. I attended an entire bible study with my pastor on divorce and remarriage before I even felt comfortable getting remarried after my divorce, which was certainly a result of sin.

 

[Hetta]

Can you explain what you mean "given a pass"? I know *we* don't give them a pass. I attended an entire bible study with my pastor on divorce and remarriage before I even felt comfortable getting remarried after my divorce, which was certainly a result of sin.

So it's okay for you to break biblical mandates about divorce and remarriage but not okay for someone else to prefer one scripture about submission over another? Because I don't remember the Bible saying that so long as you do a bible study it's okay to get remarried.

I'm not opposed to divorce/remarriage, I'm just pointing out what I see as a certain amount of hypocrisy here. You can get past one scripture by doing a bible study but another must be obeyed above all else, lest you not be a godly person. There's no reason on earth why one scripture only has to be the be-all and end-all of marriage. There is so much else out there about love and trust and faith and keeping the marriage bed holy and in sickness and in health and monogamy, etc etc. Paraphrasing I know, but it's all in there. IMO and IME of marriage, there is a lot more to marriage than having a 'head', which in most cases is titular only, because as you've said yourself, you discuss everything anyway. If he's not being the head, as in making the decisions, then it doesn't mean anything.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Can you explain what you mean "given a pass"? I know *we* don't give them a pass. I attended an entire bible study with my pastor on divorce and remarriage before I even felt comfortable getting remarried after my divorce, which was certainly a result of sin.

You have stated that you are divorced and remarried. So...what about those scriptures pertaining to divorce and remarriage? Are you conveniently ignoring those while holding Ephesians 5:22 as the end-all and be-all of marriage?

This is what I meant about cherry-picking scriptures...now...given your statements, I sense a certain amount of hypocrisy here.

 

[ValleyGal]

I have a question about headship. Every conversation about headship implies that headship is only about the decision-making process, and I do not see that in the Bible. What if headship actually means the initiator, or the primary bearer of responsibility, or something altogether different?

From my studies in my Greek Theological Dictionary, it is not about decision-making or about a chain of command, or even about someone who needs to be followed.

If it were positional, it would mean that man is above women, but we know that is not the case because when God formed woman, he took Adam's rib - a position of equality, beside him, but under his arm of protection - but also a place where the rib or (she) protects his most vulnerable parts, his internal workings. Mutually equal, mutually protective.

If it were chain of command, then Jesus would not have died for all mankind, and the curtain would not have torn in two at that time for all to enter into God's presence; rather, he would have died only for the men, and the husband would then be the salvation of women. But that is not the case because there is a verse that talks about how if a believing wife lives with a non-believing husband, she can bring him to Christ by her faith.

If it were about decision-making, you would not find women in positions of power in the Bible - including the wife of noble character, who made decisions about her household and her business. You would not find Deborah, who made decisions for Israel as her judge.

If it were about leadership, then all men would possess at least some innate leadership qualities, but that is not the case... if Deborah's husband was her leader, wouldn't he have then led Israel instead of her? Did her leadership end when she crosses the threshold of their home? And women would not be instructed to teach (similar to lead) their male children, etc.

So I am curious then, what people think headship really is...

 

[ValleyGal]

I don't think Beckie is saying Eph. 5:22 is the end all and be all. I think in the context of a thread on submission, it is appropriate to discuss submission, including Eph. 5:22. I don't read that she thinks marriages rise and fall on whether a wife is submissive.

 

[Hetta]

I don't think Beckie is saying Eph. 5:22 is the end all and be all. I think in the context of a thread on submission, it is appropriate to discuss submission, including Eph. 5:22. I don't read that she thinks marriages rise and fall on whether a wife is submissive.

Then you haven't read her posts.

post #52

... I do believe that a wife who is not submitting is also not fulfilling her Godly role.

and #116

I believe that marriages not built on the biblical principles aren't fulfilling their God-given roles