Husbands Authority

[tall73]

I'm not asking you to defend a position you don't hold. But I'm not clear what position you do hold, because you don't seem very consistent. One minute she doesn't need to submit, next minute he gets to make the decision because he's the man, and you still haven't said what she can actually do that will be effective if she feels he isn't living up to his end of the bargain.

. Not accurate. First I stated as often as possible agree with consultation. I assume you agree with that.
- Next I said if they confer and try to reach an agreement and cannot, then the husband should decide so that it can be resolved, and he should do so in keeping with the principles outlined. So for instance, it would have been more convenient in the case with my son not to take the action I did, and the risk was moderately low. But in the interest of our child if something had happened I made the decision based on his interest, not mine or my spouses.

The alternative can be never ending disputes over the same issue. We have found that we agree on nearly everything, but if we cannot agree we do a lot better together if we just make the decision and then move on, rather than having it as a divisive issue over our heads continually.

I then stated that the text is dealing with how they should order their lives. So when I preach about men loving their wives, that is explaining what should happen. If a wife told me her husband was not doing that and provided examples I would exhort him to do so (usually in a counseling situation, or if not go to him privately).

The text is not addressing discipline if this does not happen. So to say what is my solution, well what is the solution in general when sin happens in the church? There is a process of taking it to the church. I also referenced in physical abuse cases the authorities may need to be involved to punish the wrongdoer and protect the spouse.

It looks to me like you want to say, "Well, she should submit, but he should be a nice guy, so there will be no problems." But that's not real life!

Actually the vast majority of the time if the husband is loving his wife and putting her and the children's interests first, that is real life for a Christian household.

And for us that has been the case. Not that I always am loving as I should be, yes, in real life we do not always live free from sin. Yet I don't just force my wife to do things, and don't have to. Most of the time we agree. The vast majority of the time we agree on things without much discussion at all because we have shared outlooks based on God's word and discuss things in the Scriptures all the time.

And the few times we did not I made a decision with what I thought was the best interest of the family, and we moved on. We don't look back and regret it.

 

[tall73]

But at least she knows that it's not God's will that she perpetuate that by submitting to it.

She knows that anyway if she reads the text. She knows he is not living as the text says, and he is abusing his authority.

And if you preach the passage to highlight that, and I have, then her husband doesn't have an excuse. If she points it out to him, he doesn't have an excuse.

Do you think abusers keep abusing because they just misunderstand what the text says? No, it is because they don't care what it says. He is appealing to Christians in the church on the basis that those who love Christ will listen to His will.

Abusers are not interested, no matter what your view of the text.

 

[tall73]

I think for me the second half of post #135 sums up my frustration with this discussion. I don't know if there's anything more to be said unless that can be addressed.

We have had this discussion before. And I outlined it again above. I can only state my position, but I cannot guarantee you understand my position. I have responded to your questions, but our previous conversation, and my postings as a whole before this have stated what my position is.

You say if someone has an egalitarian view then they don't have to submit. And the implication is that they would have to otherwise.

But that is actually ignoring what I said about my position...
Where do people get their view of what to do if someone is abusive? The text does not spell out what to do with an abuser. I explained I preach on the principles on the text, and indicate that she should not just submit if he is acting in a sinful way but should point it out. That is my view. So to keep asking me to defend a view that is not what I spelled out is pointless. I won't defend that, because I don't hold it.

My wife feels free to tell me if she feels I am being unfair in my approach or tone, not because she is not being submissive, but because I too am under authority of Christ, and she can point that out.

And if I am doing something sinful, if my wife, my child, a stranger, points it out, should I not listen?

Authority is for a purpose, and the husband is instructed in I Peter 3 to honor his wife or his prayers are hindered. It is not just I get to decide based on my whims.

But I do believe that sometimes I must decide, because a decision is needed, and after all attempts have been made to resolve it, we need to move on.

 

[Paidiske]

Next I said if they confer and try to reach an agreement and cannot, then the husband should decide so that it can be resolved, and he should do so in keeping with the principles outlined. So for instance, it would have been more convenient in the case with my son not to take the action I did, and the risk was moderately low. But in the interest of our child if something had happened I made the decision based on his interest, not mine or my spouses.

The alternative can be never ending disputes over the same issue. We have found that we agree on nearly everything, but if we cannot agree we do a lot better together if we just make the decision and then move on, rather than having it as a divisive issue over our heads continually.

That might work in your marriage, and if your wife agrees with it and is comfortable with it, then there's no issue for you. But is it still okay for the husband to decide and act over his wife's objections, if for whatever reason that doesn't work in someone else's marriage? I don't think so.

The text is not addressing discipline if this does not happen. So to say what is my solution, well what is the solution in general when sin happens in the church? There is a process of taking it to the church. I also referenced in physical abuse cases the authorities may need to be involved to punish the wrongdoer and protect the spouse.

Yeah... I think you're not getting what I'm trying to say. My issue isn't about what the church might say or not say or the law might do or not do; it's about the bit before that, when the wife is trying to decide whether she's even allowed to say "this is a problem."

Actually the vast majority of the time if the husband is loving his wife and putting her and the children's interests first, that is real life for a Christian household.

I actually don't believe this. I don't believe that telling wives to submit is not inherently damaging to them.

She knows that anyway if she reads the text. She knows he is not living as the text says, and he is abusing his authority.

And if you preach the passage to highlight that, and I have, then her husband doesn't have an excuse. If she points it out to him, he doesn't have an excuse.

Do you think abusers keep abusing because they just misunderstand what the text says? No, it is because they don't care what it says. He is appealing to Christians in the church on the basis that those who love Christ will listen to His will.

Abusers are not interested, no matter what your view of the text.

Exactly. Which is why continually pointing back to the text is no answer at all.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not exactly saying that you don't have to submit in an egalitarian relationship. But there submission is mutual and equal and done with free will and love, not one way and certainly not demanded with "authority."

 

[tall73]

That might work in your marriage, and if your wife agrees with it and is comfortable with it, then there's no issue for you. But is it still okay for the husband to decide and act over his wife's objections, if for whatever reason that doesn't work in someone else's marriage? I don't think so.

Opinion noted. I will not try to attribute to you someone else's opinion. Now, what do you think it means when it says in the many texts wives, submit to your husbands?

 

[tall73]

That might work in your marriage, and if your wife agrees with it and is comfortable with it, then there's no issue for you. But is it still okay for the husband to decide and act over his wife's objections, if for whatever reason that doesn't work in someone else's marriage? I don't think so.

IF the wife was not OK with it then it wouldn't be what is called for in the text--submission.

I think you are saying if folks don't want to do it that way they don't have to. Yeah, that was never in doubt. NO one has to follow the Bible in this life.

What I am saying is that the text says wives submit to your husbands. But it also spells out husbands love your wives and give yourselves up for her. My view tries to incorporate both points.

Why does it say wives submit to husbands in the various texts?

 

[Paidiske]

Now, what do you think it means when it says in the many texts wives, submit to your husbands?

I think, to the communities the letters were written to, it meant "wives, don't rock the boat." It was an oppressive patriarchal culture and the church wasn't free of that.

I don't think it means that today, we need to set up unequal power dynamics when they don't need to exist. Rather, today we need to place the emphasis on submitting to one another out of love; recognising that there's no place for domineering or oppression of one another in marriage, which is supposed to be about unity and mutuality.

 

[tall73]

I actually don't believe this. I don't believe that telling wives to submit is not inherently damaging to them.

But who said it?

Col 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1Pe 3:5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Tit 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
Tit 2:4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,
Tit 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

However, my larger point there was that it actually has not been damaging for us, and a number of folks I know. First of all because it rarely comes up. If you are agreed to biblical principles are there really that many knock down drag outs? And if there are big fights, can you not immediately see that it is sinful and repent and agree? That has been my experience for myself, and for couples that try it.

And I have had many wives tell me they do not have a problem submitting in those cases where it is needed.

I can't make you believe it. That is up to you. But you should explain why the four texts above say it.

 

[Paidiske]

However, my larger point there was that it actually has not been damaging for us, and a number of folks I know. First of all because it rarely comes up. If you are agreed to biblical principles are there really that many knock down drag outs? And if there are big fights, can you not immediately see that it is sinful and repent and agree? That has been my experience for myself, and for couples that try it.

Not all couples.

Do you know what my mental image is, in this discussion? It's a woman with a black eye and broken bones being told to go back to her husband because God wants her to submit.

I can't get past that. I don't believe in healthy one-way power hierarchies among humans. I believe that always results in abuse of that power. I have seen many women suffer because of it.

Why did the epistle writers write those things? I believe it was about how to live as a Christian in the culture of the time, where wifely submission was a given. I believe they tried to mitigate the evil of it by telling husbands they had responsibilities too.

But I believe it is unequivocally wrong to try to replicate the evils of an ancient culture in our own, just because our faith happened to develop within that culture.

 

[ValleyGal]

I have not caught up with the whole thread and am not sure I can, but here is one thought.

I Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Husband and wife are join-heirs of salvation, and the husband mistreating his wife would hinder his prayers. Here weaker would seem to mean physically, but this is not a reason to harshly impose his will. Instead he is to honor.

If you go back and look at language and translation, the more accurate translation of "as unto the weaker vessel" is actually "as though they were [but aren't] the weaker vessel."

About roles: As MK pointed out, the relationship between child and parent is obvious. The role of slave and master is akin to an employer and employee. Of course I'm going to submit to my employer. She pays me.

About why men are not instructed to "submit" to their wives: they are. A deeper study of language and translation will show that HOW a man loves his wife like Jesus loves the church is the same as HOW a wife submits to her husband AS TO the Lord. Iow, it starts with him. As I've noted before, Jesus loves the church first and pursues her, and did all that WHILE she was still a sinner. That is an important part of the relationship that pretty much all men - and the author of "Love and Respect" - ignore. How a woman submits to her husband is a direct reflection of her perception of his love (which is submission, but men had to have it spelled out, where women understand the term "submit" - or so it seems).

 

[tall73]

Exactly. Which is why continually pointing back to the text is no answer at all.

No answer to what? How should she deal with an abuser. Well I pointed out several Scriptures that say

a. don't comply with something against God's will.
b. Bring it to the church.
c. Bring it to the authorities.

I don't see why it is wrong to point to what the text says to do when there are conflicts, or if someone violated the law, etc.

But the initial text was meant to describe what Christians should do.

 

[Paidiske]

No answer to what? How should she deal with an abuser. Well I pointed out several Scriptures that say

a. don't comply with something against God's will.
b. Bring it to the church.
c. Bring it to the authorities.

I don't see why it is wrong to point to what the text says to do when there are conflicts, or if someone violated the law, etc.

But the initial text was meant to describe what Christians should do.

I thought you were saying she should point out the Scripture to him, so that he would then do the right thing?

And we're not just talking about stuff that's "against God's will." I don't think anyone will tell a wife to go along with her husband's plans to rob a bank, but everyday life has so many more mundane situations where God's will isn't at all clear.

 

[tall73]

I think, to the communities the letters were written to, it meant "wives, don't rock the boat." It was an oppressive patriarchal culture and the church wasn't free of that.

I don't think it means that today, we need to set up unequal power dynamics when they don't need to exist. Rather, today we need to place the emphasis on submitting to one another out of love; recognising that there's no place for domineering or oppression of one another in marriage, which is supposed to be about unity and mutuality.

And with that, now that we have clarified our views, we are now back to what we were just preparing to talk about--what is the evidence that it is an enduring principle, and what is the evidence that it is cultural.

Now that I think we can have a conversation on, and as always we may or may not agree. We will have to go through what we think are various evidences to that point.

 

[tall73]

Not all couples.

Of course not. Not all husbands do what Paul said. But if they did they wouldn't have the problems you are discussing, because what you are discussing is those who reject what he said.

Do you know what my mental image is, in this discussion? It's a woman with a black eye and broken bones being told to go back to her husband because God wants her to submit.

And that is why I am defending a position I didn't take.

You show me in the text where it says for the husband to do that. That is an image you have from people who have done that, not because they followed what Paul said, but because they rejected what Paul said.

No one who loves their wife as Christ loves the church does that. No one.

And the image you have is that of those who completely disregard his words. So how can you hold me accountable for that? And how can you hold Paul accountable for that?

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not holding you accountable for that. But I'm saying that that's what happens when people argue for one-sided submission and husbandly authority. So we must stand against it, as a matter of basic ethics and commitment to the gospel.

This is why it can't be God's will, or an enduring principle. Because we see that the fruit is rotten and evil.

 

[tall73]

I thought you were saying she should point out the Scripture to him, so that he would then do the right thing?

And we're not just talking about stuff that's "against God's will." I don't think anyone will tell a wife to go along with her husband's plans to rob a bank, but everyday life has so many more mundane situations where God's will isn't at all clear.

I stated she should point it out to him and not comply, sure.

If he is being abusive that is against God's will, already addressed.

And I already said that the whole idea of loving your wife as Christ loves the church means you will not just disregard her and do whatever your whim is.


You are talking about someone who dictates everything --not my view.

You are talking about someone who beats their wife--not my view

You are talking about someone who doesn't care about their wife--not my view

And those are not Paul's view, or the view of Ephesians 5.

So what do you want me to say? Why would I defend that?

 

[tall73]

I'm not holding you accountable for that. But I'm saying that that's what happens when people argue for one-sided submission and husbandly authority.

No, that is what happens when people who ignore the text do what the text says not to do.

That is like saying that children obey your parents is not valid because there are pedophiles. Obviously that verse does not stop pedophiles. Nor does it address pedophiles.

But it is even more out of step because the text actually does say treat your spouse as you would yourself and as Christ treats the church. And that has ZERO to do with beating your wife, etc.

You say I am not accountable for that--you are quite right, I have nothing to do with that because I actually preach that is wrong and evil.

No one who followed what the text says, or even what I say the text says would beat their wife.

 

[Paidiske]

I stated she should point it out to him and not comply, sure.

If he is being abusive that is against God's will, already addressed.

And I already said that the whole idea of loving your wife as Christ loves the church means you will not just disregard her and do whatever your whim is.


You are talking about someone who dictates everything --not my view.

You are talking about someone who beats their wife--not my view

You are talking about someone who doesn't care about their wife--not my view

And those are not Paul's view, or the view of Ephesians 5.

So what do you want me to say? Why would I defend that?

I want you to say that God doesn't require her to submit! That she is free to discern God's will for herself, and to obey her conscience.

Not just that he should be a good guy, or that he's not doing what the text says, but that it is good and right for her to refuse to submit. That our church should set forth a vision of marriage in which no man would ever get the message that he has power over his wife in any way.

I want you to renounce male claims to power over women's bodies, minds, wills and lives. I want you to say that any male who claims such power does not have the mandate of God, and that if he claims he does, that should be howled down by a church which actually believes in the dignity and worth of women.

I'm arguing with you because I'm not hearing that from you.

 

[tall73]

I want you to say that God doesn't require her to submit! That she is free to discern God's will for herself, and to obey her conscience.

Well great, and that is why we are going to compare notes on what indications there are it is a lasting principle or not.

But the text does say she should submit. So I can't say it doesn't. If we can find, as we did with slavery, that there is a good reason it doesn't apply, fine.

But to say that it doesn't apply because people beat their wives has no relation. Anyone following that text does not beat their wife. So you cannot say the text is wrong because it leads to beating of wives, when anyone who follows it would never beat their wife.