The point has been made that if all women "kept silence in the churches," nothing would be getting done, since the men aren't doing it. I don't know if that's true or not. The statement didn't originate with me, but it has been my personal observation that many churches consist of far more women than men. For many women, waiting for the man to take the lead would mean standing still for an awfully long time.
It's interesting that you point that out. We were just discussing this issue at my Bible study last night. One man wisely pointed out "two wrongs don't make a right". We now live in a society where men don't have to feel the need to step up. Because if they don't, the women will. Men are being raised to fear and lothe headship roles and women are being raised to believe we must fight for the right to hold them. It's messed up.
Another important thing to remember is that we're talking (in this case) about the church body, where believers are (or at least should be) growing and maturing in the faith as we serve and obey our Lord. Leaders should be arising from this. God provides when we obey. We should not be relying on limited, flawed human logic, but instead resting in Him. Sometimes that means women need to be patient and wait (and pray!) for the men to step up.
All this said, I don't understand why feminism and femininity have to be mutually exclusive. It is a myth to assume all feminists are big, hairy, loud, man-hating lesbians, just as it is in error to assume that all feminine women are helpless appendages of their men.
Of course not. But perhaps feminism should be defined more here. I see it as something that causes women to be independant minded, focused on individuality an self preservation to a degree that any sort of submission is considered to be weak and rediculous. It still carries that battle cry "I can do anything you can! And probably better!". This sort of attitude is not new. It's always been around. But we currently live in a society that embraces and emulates it to a point where the family and church structure are crumbling. That is a serious problem. Submission is not a bad thing! But feminism promotes it as such. As members of the Body we are not called to focus on our own rights, but to serve selflessly in the roles God has designed us for and has designed for us. Doing so actually celebrates our individual uniqueness instead of forcing us into unnatural roles.
I gladly submit to Mike. After asking me for my input, he makes the final decisions. Nothing makes me happier than ironing his work clothes or placing supper in front of him. I'll even wash his feet on occasion.
But:
- If someone were to tell me I *had* to live this way, that I have no other option because I am a woman, I would be the first to throw rotten eggs at that person.
LOL, then you better huck some eggs in God's direction. Wives submit to your husbands is a very clear Scriptural command.
What's cool though, is that you are getting to see the benifit of obedience to this command, even if that is not why you're doing it.
- If Mike were to *demand* this sort of treatment, especially without offering respect in return, I'd be as gone as a goose in winter. The fact that he does not treat me as inferior makes me glad to do menial tasks for him, knowing that there are times when he does the same for me.
It has been common over the years for people to take the submission command out of the context that a man is to love his wive as Christ loves the church. Men have a heavy responsibility there too. However, the "two wrongs don't make a right" comment comes into play here as well. Wives aren't commanded to submit only when he's fulfilling his duty though. Likewise, men are not called to be the head of the home only when the wife is filling her duty. We are each responsible to obey God individually, even when our spouse is not living up to his or her end. We can always have confidence in obedience to Christ and His commands. He will sustain us. And you know, when one spouse lives obediently instead of living in reactionary sin, it sets an incredibly powerful example that changes lives.
A minister counseled me, after ending an abusive marriage, that "submit" doesn't mean "lie down and let him kick you." More recently, a minister's wife offered, "Submit means to stand back so God can get a better shot."
Yep. Submission never means agreeing to sin. Allowing abuse to continue is condoning the spouse's sin, which is harmful to the victim and disobedient to God. But abuse is not the norm when we're talking about a marriage of believers. So while yes, the issue is important and must be addressed, it is not the base for defining a husband's and a wife's role.
In summary, I believe myself to be both feminine and egalitarian, and I don't see how one negates the other.
Maybe not always, but I think too often it can. Women are taking on these leadership roles and trying to "have it all". They so often end up spreading themselves so thin that they don't get quality time with their families, they become worn out and sick, and everything they have worked so hard for becomes a kind of self imposed prison. And the men are miserable too because they are not fulfilling their duties. They become lazy and even spineless sometimes, lacking discipline and feeling emasculated. Marriages are failing because of these things. I don't think this is liberation. I personally find infinitely more liberation in taking on the submissive role and allowing/encouraging men to be men.
