Instigating Headship/Submission?

[Johnnz]

Molly,



You asked about 1 Peter 3.





1 Peter 3:1-7 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, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 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, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.



Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. NIV



This passage seems to teach submission, and in one sense it does. Here, Peter is reinforcing a common moral code that existed in Jewish, Roman and Greek society at the time. Paul did exactly the same in his letters. The reason was simple. Family was a foundational concept in the NT world. It was extremely important for the new group that became known as Christians to never be seen as subversive in any way. Society was also strongly patriarchal, and that could not be directly challenged either. Both would have lead to state persecution. So, Peter and Paul provide teaching that conforms to society’s values, unless you had some more intimate knowledge of the additional material that both writers used. There was additional meaning that only those who had been given Christian instruction would recognize easily.



The key here is in verse 7, where the phrase “in the same way” reoccurs. What did this mean when applied to husbands? It is the link between several statements about relationships and submission.



The word ‘submit’ was used earlier in the letter.



1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.



And in



1 Peter 2:18-19 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.



The phrase “in the same way” is again used in

1 Peter 5:5 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older.



The phrase “in the same way’ is therefore used by Peter to link the concept of submission.



We accept the role of the state, except where it conflicts with Christian values. But, that does not exclude Christians becoming active against the state on some issue, as they did in the Black Rights movement in the 60’s. It never means surrendering passively to every edict of the state.



What about slavery? Where slavery exists, should Christians simply accept it and offer Peter’s admonition to slaves? We once did! Today we do not see slavery as a moral institution. It breaches the integrity of each human being made in the image of God. Christians were active in the abolitionist movement. Peter gave advice for his time, as Christians were powerless to protest against it then. They simply undermined its basis within the Christian community, which was a classless, gender free racial equal group (see Gal 3:28).



Then wives are to submit. Peter then uses that phrase “in the same way”. It is a cross reference to his preceding statements. Peter’s progression in his teaching is then for Christians to submit to the state, Christian slaves to their masters, wives to their husbands, similarly husbands to wives, and finally young men (but not young women!) are to submit to older people (gender not specified).



Paul and Peter both know that to simply state “husbands are also to submit to their wives” would have exposed the church to persecution on the grounds that Christians were undermining the accepted social order. Both authors used the same device to make just that point without it being obvious to outsiders. Peter asks that husbands treat their wives with respect, and then adds as heirs of life together, echoing the Divine mandate in Genesis that man and woman were jointly exercise rule over the created order (Gen 1:28) and joint bearers of God’s image. (Gen 1:27). Paul is more explicit. He gives the sacrificial servant life of Jesus as men’s example to follow. Christians in the NT would be well aware of the implications for the overthrow of a patriarchal society that were contained in Christian values and teaching.



Taking all those submission references together Peter was simply teaching Christians to be respectful and compliant to recognized institutions within their society.



Re your OT reference. We cannot just pluck a verse out of somewhere and place it into a current issue. If that verse still applies then every other verse in the entire Mosaic Law does too.



Shania. It is my understanding of the NT that husbands and wives should be sharing the decision making. The husband as ‘boss’ or ‘household executive’ is not a NT teaching



John

NZ

 

[alaskamolly]

Here, Peter is reinforcing a common moral code that existed in Jewish, Roman and Greek society at the time. Paul did exactly the same in his letters. The reason was simple. Family was a foundational concept in the NT world.

Interesting, though, that he commented back to ancient Jewish times to use as an example for the modern Greek/Roman time. I used to buy into the "this is all just cultural" argument for this text too, but the fact that Peter reaches far back, into another culture, and brings that out as his example, was something that didn't square with my 'it's just cultural' philosophy.

Re your OT reference. We cannot just pluck a verse out of somewhere and place it into a current issue. If that verse still applies then every other verse in the entire Mosaic Law does too.

Then I'm afraid we'll need to cast out most of the arguments of Paul, who bases much of his NT teaching on OT texts (Roman 3:10-19 is a great example of him 'plucking verses' and placing them into current issues.

And let's not forget the Bereans. They looked into the OT in order to see if the things that Paul was teaching were true.

And the point was not whether or not that verse applies today, but the interesting concept that GOD HIMSELF set up that rule! GOD HIMSELF said that a husband's decision could come between a vow that a wife made to the Lord. I realize that you'd rather not deal with that issue, but I think it's worth considering.

Your logic about not being able to use anything in the Mosiac code for reference to understanding God and His heart is a grave mistake. The Law is a reflection of God--and your reasoning that, "we can't use any of it for anything otherwise we must obey the entire thing," is faulty.

What about slavery? Where slavery exists, should Christians simply accept it and offer Peter’s admonition to slaves? We once did! Today we do not see slavery as a moral institution. It breaches the integrity of each human being made in the image of God. Christians were active in the abolitionist movement. Peter gave advice for his time, as Christians were powerless to protest against it then. They simply undermined its basis within the Christian community, which was a classless, gender free racial equal group (see Gal 3:28).

This is interesting. Slavery was set up in the Mosiac Law as a perfectly viable institution (a much much different form of slavery than the twisted kind experienced in Southern USA, by the way).

GOD set that up. God doesn't seem to have a major problem with one person being ruled by another.

It is only our modern mind that has a major problem with this concept (and yet it is sort of funny that we would, considering how our modern world has trained us all to be voluntary slaves to the system, voluntarily clocking in our respective time cards to our respective factory system, obediently responding to the bells and whistles, just as our goverment schooling has trained us to do, never questioning our dependance)... Very few ever experience "being their own boss," and very few ever even pause to question whether or not things ought to be this way... But I digress...

Personally, I don't have all the answers or the understanding for the issue of slavery in the Scriptures, but at the same time, I think this is something important for the Christian to grapple with. Today we would emphatically say that God is opposed to any form of slavery. Well...Is He? Is He a different God than the one in the OT?

Maybe we should set that up as a side topic, though, as that will get us even more off the original topic than we already are!


Blessings,
Molly

 

[mghalpern]

Interesting, though, that he commented back to ancient Jewish times to use as an example for the modern Greek/Roman time. I used to buy into the "this is all just cultural" argument for this text too, but the fact that Peter reaches far back, into another culture, and brings that out as his example, was something that didn't square with my 'it's just cultural' philosophy.

Then I'm afraid we'll need to cast out most of the arguments of Paul, who bases much of his NT teaching on OT texts (Roman 3:10-19 is a great example of him 'plucking verses' and placing them into current issues.

And let's not forget the Bereans. They looked into the OT in order to see if the things that Paul was teaching were true.

And the point was not whether or not that verse applies today, but the interesting concept that GOD HIMSELF set up that rule! GOD HIMSELF said that a husband's decision could come between a vow that a wife made to the Lord. I realize that you'd rather not deal with that issue, but I think it's worth considering.

Your logic about not being able to use anything in the Mosiac code for reference to understanding God and His heart is a grave mistake. The Law is a reflection of God--and your reasoning that, "we can't use any of it for anything otherwise we must obey the entire thing," is faulty.


This is interesting. Slavery was set up in the Mosiac Law as a perfectly viable institution (a much much different form of slavery than the twisted kind experienced in Southern USA, by the way).

GOD set that up. God doesn't seem to have a major problem with one person being ruled by another.

It is only our modern mind that has a major problem with this concept (and yet it is sort of funny that we would, considering how our modern world has trained us all to be voluntary slaves to the system, voluntarily clocking in our respective time cards to our respective factory system, obediently responding to the bells and whistles, just as our goverment schooling has trained us to do, never questioning our dependance)... Very few ever experience "being their own boss," and very few ever even pause to question whether or not things ought to be this way... But I digress...

Personally, I don't have all the answers or the understanding for the issue of slavery in the Scriptures, but at the same time, I think this is something important for the Christian to grapple with. Today we would emphatically say that God is opposed to any form of slavery. Well...Is He? Is He a different God than the one in the OT?

Maybe we should set that up as a side topic, though, as that will get us even more off the original topic than we already are!


Blessings,
Molly

Molly, Molly, Molly... Superb! I guess when Christ said "For it is written..." we ought to throw that out too because He is referring to OT scripture. I so wholeheartedly agree with you that it is our "modern mind" that has the "major problem." What too many Christians aren't willing to accept is that we all have a personal responsibility to God (we will all account for our actions, thoughts, and words) when we meet Him. It seems that we only want to do what is right when others are treating us as they are supposed to (if my spouse does such and such according to what the Word of God says, then I will do such and such as I am told to do in God's Word). It doesn't work that way. We are called to personal account before God our King. It doesn't matter what my wife does/says/thinks, I'm to love her as Christ loves the church and laid His life down for it. We are not living our lives for each other, but for the Lord. If I'm not being obedient to the Lord, my wife doesn't have an excuse not to "obey me or submit" because she is doing so as unto the Lord! If she were out there being a harlot, I’m to still live with her with understanding!! Etc., etc. etc. This is not easy and nobody said that living a Christian life is supposed to be easy/fun/happy/etc. When will be get this all through our heads (or better still…into our spirits)?…Michael

 

[Johnnz]

Molly



You wrote “Then I'm afraid we'll need to cast out most of the arguments of Paul, who bases much of his NT teaching on OT texts (Roman 3:10-19 is a great example of him 'plucking verses' and placing them into current issues.”



That is a misrepresentation of what I said. The OT is part of the Bible. It is part of the revelation of God to mankind. But all that is in it was given within a context of history, God’s purposes at the time, and its association with what had preceded it. Biblical commentators all agree that God’s revelation to us was progressive. Thus, OT passages were used in the NT to show how Christ was the fulfillment of God’s progressive revelation to us, and His most complete statement to us. Therefore, the OT can be used to support the teachings set out in the NT. This is what Paul (and Jesus, the gospel writers and all other NT authors did. No problem with that.



Re plucking our verses. Where the above principles are not adhered to (i.e. interpreting the Old in light of the New) we do two things. One, we do not follow the interpretative principles of Jesus and all the other NT writers. Secondly, we become vulnerable to inserting our own interpretations in to the texts. One well know bible teacher once told us “You can prove anything from Scripture if you want to.” He was referring to just this issue.



You wrote



“And the point was not whether or not that verse applies today, but the interesting concept that GOD HIMSELF set up that rule! GOD HIMSELF said that a husband's decision could come between a vow that a wife made to the Lord. I realize that you'd rather not deal with that issue, but I think it's worth considering.



Your logic about not being able to use anything in the Mosiac code for reference to understanding God and His heart is a grave mistake. The Law is a reflection of God--and your reasoning that, "we can't use any of it for anything otherwise we must obey the entire thing," is faulty.”



No it is not faulty. Paul wrote Gal 5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law .NIV Here he was saying that if you need to obey one part of the law (circumcision) you must obey it all. The verse you originally quoted was part of a set of laws that came with a specific covenant. No eating of unclean animals, barred from religious assembly during menstruation, annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem etc etc. Any takers?



You wrote



This is interesting. Slavery was set up in the Mosiac Law as a perfectly viable institution (a much much different form of slavery than the twisted kind experienced in Southern USA, by the way).



Are you saying the abolitionists, and more particularly the Christian abolitionists were in error by deliberately seeking to overthrow the eternal, divinely established institution of slavery? Count me well out on that one.



Thanks for your response and willingness to debate together. I am enjoying the exchange of ideas.



John

NZ

 

[alaskamolly]

When will be get this all through our heads (or better still…into our spirits)?…---Michael

Excellent choice of words.

No it is not faulty. Paul wrote Gal 5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law .NIV Here he was saying that if you need to obey one part of the law (circumcision) you must obey it all. The verse you originally quoted was part of a set of laws that came with a specific covenant. No eating of unclean animals, barred from religious assembly during menstruation, annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem etc etc. Any takers?

Excellent points...except for the fact that you are fighting against something I've never said. In my reference to the OT, I was not suggesting (and do believe I made that quite clear) that we were to OBEY the law...

I was simply suggesting that it was awful interesting observation (an observation that you STILL have not dealt with, btw other than to suggest that you don't HAVE to deal with it because it's "in the Mosiac code" and I guess that means it has zero application to our comprehension of Yahweh?)...and it's also a direct contradiction to your philosophy that there are no authority roles in marraige and that God would never have it be so.

Now, maybe God changed His mind...maybe He just did that because it historically made sense back then to say such a thing, but now it's historically different...maybe He changes continually, ruled by the ever-swaying tide of human culture...

I simply find the Mosiac code incredibly fascinating, because here we see God setting UP a culture.

He was obviously NOT concerned here with 'fitting in' to the culture at large--actually, it was quite the opposite! And in setting up this new culture, He did some things that fly right in the face of much of your philosophy (and mine, previously).

It really does a doozy on the entire 'cultural' argument, you know, because in the Mosiac code, we simply cannot use that argument at all! And yet we have God choosing authority roles in marraige... I mean, here was His big shot to call for 'mutual submission only' and rid the world of this *terrible patriarchal influence* and yet... did He do that? No. He only established it even more so, in righteousness and in holiness.

Are you saying the abolitionists, and more particularly the Christian abolitionists were in error by deliberately seeking to overthrow the eternal, divinely established institution of slavery? Count me well out on that one.

I don't believe I was saying that--do you? I was simply asking you a question that you want to avoid:

Is the God of the OT different from the God of the NT?

Becuase the God of the OT doesn't seem to have a problem with people being in authority over other people. Let's nix the slavery discussion (btw, I come from a people group that has been historically oppressed and enslaved) because it goes WAY too far off topic, but go back to authority issues in marriage itself.

You say that if a husband is in authority over a wife, it somehow lessens her personhood, her status before God and her status to the world, right? Well, the OT sure doesn't seem to say that she is of lesser status spiritually and it certainly doesn't say that she is of lesser status to the world--only, that she is measured in a DIFFERENT way.

But back to the question at hand. Is God different? Is the OT God the big meanie, and the NT God the big fuzzy? Or is He the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and His heart for women the same as it is today?


Warm Regards,
Molly

 

[mghalpern]

Excellent choice of words.


Excellent points...except for the fact that you are fighting against something I've never said. In my reference to the OT, I was not suggesting (and do believe I made that quite clear) that we were to OBEY the law...

I was simply suggesting that it was awful interesting observation (an observation that you STILL have not dealt with, btw other than to suggest that you don't HAVE to deal with it because it's "in the Mosiac code" and I guess that means it has zero application to our comprehension of Yahweh?)...and it's also a direct contradiction to your philosophy that there are no authority roles in marraige and that God would never have it be so.

Now, maybe God changed His mind...maybe He just did that because it historically made sense back then to say such a thing, but now it's historically different...maybe He changes continually, ruled by the ever-swaying tide of human culture...

I simply find the Mosiac code incredibly fascinating, because here we see God setting UP a culture.

He was obviously NOT concerned here with 'fitting in' to the culture at large--actually, it was quite the opposite! And in setting up this new culture, He did some things that fly right in the face of much of your philosophy (and mine, previously).

It really does a doozy on the entire 'cultural' argument, you know, because in the Mosiac code, we simply cannot use that argument at all! And yet we have God choosing authority roles in marraige... I mean, here was His big shot to call for 'mutual submission only' and rid the world of this *terrible patriarchal influence* and yet... did He do that? No. He only established it even more so, in righteousness and in holiness.



I don't believe I was saying that--do you? I was simply asking you a question that you want to avoid:

Is the God of the OT different from the God of the NT?

Becuase the God of the OT doesn't seem to have a problem with people being in authority over other people. Let's nix the slavery discussion (btw, I come from a people group that has been historically oppressed and enslaved) because it goes WAY too far off topic, but go back to authority issues in marriage itself.

You say that if a husband is in authority over a wife, it somehow lessens her personhood, her status before God and her status to the world, right? Well, the OT sure doesn't seem to say that she is of lesser status spiritually and it certainly doesn't say that she is of lesser status to the world--only, that she is measured in a DIFFERENT way.

But back to the question at hand. Is God different? Is the OT God the big meanie, and the NT God the big fuzzy? Or is He the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and His heart for women the same as it is today?


Warm Regards,
Molly

Molly... I am so glad that you are dealing with this because, though I am very interested in this, I don't know that I have the patience for this "argument." However, I do have a couple of things that I would offer in light of what Johnnz has said or implied...



1) You can't have it both ways... and you (Molly) said it perfectly--God is either the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow or He isn't. John has said that the OT was written for a different people at a different time in history...then I would suggest that we might need a "Newer Testament" for the current times (Oh, wait a minute...there are many "religions" who have attempted to do this already) because we don't live in the same "culture" that the NT addresses.



2) Similar to the last point, John has said that the interpretation we are using in this discussion is a "modern" reading of the NT…not as it was intended for the people of its day. Again…you can’t have it both ways, you can’t say that this “new and enlightened” view is unacceptable and that the OT views are also not relevant for today. Boy…talk about narrowing something down to one verse in scripture…we have to take the Bible as a whole to truly understand the heart of God and know is will and design for our lives.



There seems to be a lot of “cultural influence” in this discussion. Many of the women and John seem to have been affected by the way many men in our culture have used these “headship/submission” scriptures to abuse women and their “position/authority” over them. This is a very feminist view of the scriptures. We must recognize that we are corrupt and a fallen people, yet God’s Word is perfect in all its ways.



John mentioned that this subject has been re-evaluated by many modern scholars and they have a new view on these scriptures. That may be, but not only have I not read anything to contradict the “traditional” view of headship/submission, but nearly every “authoritative” writer whose life work has been to better marriages seems to also take this “historical” view on this issue. Maybe the “new meaning” hasn’t made it into the books of these writers.



As a semi-side-note…many, if not most of our “modern” churches have watered down the whole message of God’s Word so that their pansy parishioners aren’t offended by such a tough God. If anyone has been to a service in a third-world country, or heard a message that was preached there, you would hear a much different message than the ones we hear on Sunday morning. It’s not brimstone and hellfire, just the truth as Jesus and the Apostles taught it. The Bible is very tough since it is quite contrary to what our flesh want to hear…we are so soft and desire everything to be comfortable, easy, and palatable. However, there are many subjects in the Bible that fly in the face of how we want to feel. Once again, we are looking for that fuzzy feeling when we leave church…why aren’t we going into our services to “get our marching orders” and then following through on them the rest of the week. No wonder it is so difficult to tell a Christian apart from the non-believer…Michael

 

[Johnnz]

Molly,



You wrote Excellent points...except for the fact that you are fighting against something I've never said. In my reference to the OT, I was not suggesting (and do believe I made that quite clear) that we were to OBEY the law...



I was simply suggesting that it was awful interesting observation (an observation that you STILL have not dealt with, btw other than to suggest that you don't HAVE to deal with it because it's "in the Mosiac code" and I guess that means it has zero application to our comprehension of Yahweh?)...and it's also a direct contradiction to your philosophy that there are no authority roles in marraige and that God would never have it be so.



Now, maybe God changed His mind...maybe He just did that because it historically made sense back then to say such a thing, but now it's historically different...maybe He changes continually, ruled by the ever-swaying tide of human culture...



The problem you face is that your original quote did come from the Mosaic law, or covenant. As I have pointed out, along with Paul, adherence to one point necessitates obedience to all of it. You may not have said that, but it is an inescapable conclusion.



Go back and read what I wrote about progressive revelation. I don’t deny that the entire OT tells us about God. Jesus and all the NT writers told us that it did. But, they all were followers of the New Covenant (or NewTestament), which superceded the Old. Look at the book of Hebrews. That’s its entire message.



There are no authority roles is marriage taught in the NT. We do not have a new covenant with bits tacked on from the older ones – there were seven of them, incidentally. If so, we could then use the many examples of polygamy from the OT to justify that practice applying now.



Your comments about God changing His mind etc are simply ridiculous. I don’t subscribe to that view at all. God does not accommodate to our cultural changes. Our problem is obtaining an accurate understanding of the biblical cultures so that we can rightly interpret the scriptures in their application for today. Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc were not 21st century Americans. This is why I changed my stance of roles in marriage. When I saw that the original language of the NT did not clearly support the more recent usage of the word ‘head’ in the sense of boss or leader, the ministry of women in the NT church, or hierarchical leadership I was obliged to change by views. Rather than being influenced by modern feminist culture, as someone else has claimed, I discovered that it was our own christian culture which had adopted a false understanding over the generations.



You wrote “You say that if a husband is in authority over a wife, it somehow lessens her personhood, her status before God and her status to the world, right? Well, the OT sure doesn't seem to say that she is of lesser status spiritually and it certainly doesn't say that she is of lesser status to the world--only, that she is measured in a DIFFERENT way.”



That’s not what I said, but that is one consequence of a male supremacist view. In Genesis male and female jointly expressed the image of God and jointly were given authority to tend God’s creation. There was never any mention of rank or status in that story. This was God’s eternal purpose for the human race.



You wrote “But back to the question at hand. Is God different? Is the OT God the big meanie, and the NT God the big fuzzy? Or is He the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and His heart for women the same as it is today?”



Those are your words. I do agree with tour last phrase though. That’s why I am so passionate for the high view of women that the NT contains. It is only faulty understanding that has given Paul such bad press and led to unnecessary criticism of the church from many quarters.



John

NZ

 

[Leanna]

Dear Christians,

I believe I can pray and read the Bible and feel peace on a subject. If you want to condemn a freedom that I believe God has granted, that is your business. We will both answer before God. If you believe it is wrong for equality to exist, follow your heart. I will follow mine. I will not be bullied into doing something I don't believe and I hope that you do not allow your hearts to swell with pride over other Christians who do their best to follow the same Lord and Savior to the best of their understanding.

Love,
me

 

[mghalpern]

Dear Christians,

I believe I can pray and read the Bible and feel peace on a subject. If you want to condemn a freedom that I believe God has granted, that is your business. We will both answer before God. If you believe it is wrong for equality to exist, follow your heart. I will follow mine. I will not be bullied into doing something I don't believe and I hope that you do not allow your hearts to swell with pride over other Christians who do their best to follow the same Lord and Savior to the best of their understanding.

Love,
me

Leanna... Your post is very interesting in that you would feel bullied into doing anything that someone suggests or thinks differently than you do on an online forum. Now if you husband was demanding some change of you, I would understand. How in the world do you (or others like Jennifer) find that anything that is said in one of these threads is condemning unless you are singled out and told you are wrong for your beliefs. The only time I get offended at this is when I am being convicted by the Holy Spirit about something someone wrote that I disagree with. Maybe the Lord is showing me that my thoughts are not always congruent with His. Maybe a long held belief of mine is not a correct one. Just something to think about...Michael

PS You are absolutely right...we will all stand before our Lord and give an account for our thoughts, actions, and words. If you are doing exactly as the Holy Spirit is leading you and your husband doesn't seem to disagree, great...keep up the good work, for you don't need to feel bullied into doing anything differently.

 

[mcb1998au]

Decisions in our household are made equally between my husband and myself most of the time. I will not submit to him merely because he is the man anymore than he will submit to me for being the woman. There have even been times when junior has made the decision depending on what it is, of course. In the event we cant agree on something then the one who is going to be most affected by the outcome is the one to make the final decision.

 

[Svt4Him]

And that is exactly what the people under Moses thought. They thought they were God's people (and they were), they thought that they were the ones most affected by the decisions (and they were), and they thought they didn't have to listen to Moses anymore. God called them rebellious, and the ground opened up and ate them. Then there were those who thought their gifts elevated them above God's chosen head, and God made one of them sick.

Anyone can feel happy in their freedom, in the same way a non-Christian can be happy in their sin, or a drug user can be happy in their high. But kingdom principles are there for our own good, not to ruin our fun.

As a side note, try finding the word "fair" in the Bible.

 

[Cordy]

As a side note, try finding the word "fair" in the Bible.

o.k. :



" 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19: 15

“…for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair” Proverbs 1:3

“Then you will understand what is right and just and fair-every good path.” Proverbs 2:9

“Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:9

…. Here are just a few – there are more

 

[shania]

I still would like to hear what other people think about a question I asked more than a couple of times.

For those who have the traditional/conservative Christian viewpoint: What if the husband decides he will make his decisions JOINTLY with his wife?

What if a woman believes in joint decision making marries a man who believes in it as well? If the husband decides the decision-making will not primarily be done by him then wouldn't that be his decision as HEAD, as you define it?

And if men and women who think in your traditional way in terms of headship only married each other.....

.....and those with a different approach only married each other.....

I believe that if everyone marries the partner who has a similar perspective on this subject then this is up to the individual couple to decide, and no one else.

This issue, and all other spiritual matters really, are ultimately between the couple and God.

If we knew how to RESPECT other Christian's different viewpoints on it,
we could still have an informative discussion, learn more from one another and not sabatoge each other as Christians.

We are already sabatoged in the secular world and it really gives others a poor impression of Christianity when we cut down each other and create an atmosphere of division instead of unity.

After reading these kinds of threads, I can only imagine the pressure all of the great reformers went though when they questioned TRADITION and INTERPRETATION and PRACTICE, when they were only examining the way things had always been done by the church, instead of questioning their faith.

Just think, if they didn't question anything we'd all be Catholics right now....

Not the mention many of things that were discussed in this thread would have been blasphemous.

So I consider it a contradiction for any non-Catholic to protest the questioning and examining of Christian practices and new ideas, because this is how their very own churches were born.

 

[Svt4Him]

What if the husband decides he will make his decisions JOINTLY with his wife?

Would this be like Moses when he said he couldn't do what God asked of him? He felt others could lead better?

And it's true, fair is in the Bible, sorry. I mean where it says life will be fair.

And finally, although I do understand what you are saying, my church wouldn't be catholic, as the catholic church isn't the father of all churches in the world. There were a truckload of believers before rome ever got involved.

 

[LiberatedChick]

If the husband decides the decision-making will not primarily be done by him then wouldn't that be his decision as HEAD, as you define it?

IMO If that was his decision and his wife wanted to submit to him then she'd go with that. However, whilst he has made a decision that all decisions shall be made jointly he has also made a decision that his wife is submitting to. So in following his wishes and making the decisions jointly she is being submissive imo. In saying that I don't see submission as a one person thing anyway...input into situations which require decisions is a joint thing. The husband only need to draw a conclusion from it.

And if men and women who think in your traditional way in terms of headship only married each other.....

.....and those with a different approach only married each other.....

Depends who you marry though doesn't it. Whilst I believe in submission my husband has never heard of it as he's non-Christian. Doesn't mean I can't and don't submit though....I can and do. It's not because I feel I must or because my husband demands it. It's because I choose to. A book I have been reading lately by Linda Davis on Christian/non-Christian relationships describes submission as a self-sacrifice. She states that it was Christs self-sacrifice for His bride that won his authority as Head of the church and God requires that same self-sacrifice today from men who wish to exercise authority as the head of their wives. Thus I don't see submission as men being all powerful, or women being nothing but slaves to their husbands. I see it as a beautifully loving self-sacrifice that both husband and wife must do if it's to be true submission.

 

[Andry]

Way too exhausted to read with all volleying back and forth...but the title of this thread is a bit peculiar - "instigating".

My rhetorical question is, if we all - assuming we're all believers here - submit to Christ because he does have headship, how did he "instigate" headship when during his earthly ministry? How does he "instigate" headship in our lives now?

Nike's slogan is particularly appropriate: "Just do it". Instead of arguing back and forth who has the 'right', who has the title, who is the 'leader', just get on with it, as Jesus did it.

My wife and I have known each other for 19 years, 11 of them married. And we've not once ever argued or even raised this subject. It's such a sweet win-win deal: the more we serve each other, the more we want to serve each other. So we don't ever have a problem if one year we go to a spa, or the next year we go golfing on vacation.

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

*Sasch apologises for the link getting mean - she just wanted to hear people's experiences, and how people utilised h/s in their marriages

I think this thread has kinda got off topic with the arguing between it - I just wanted real life stories on how it was introduced into a relationship, how you talked about it with your husbands, and if I should start doing so now, in my 'not-engaged-but-heading-to-marriage' relationship...

Sasch

 

[Leanna]

Michael, if I sounded like I was worked up or offended, I didn't mean to. I wasn't. I am not. I just wanted you guys to know I felt peace. I don't take it personally. Thanks though.

Mbams, your post about "fair in the Bible" was really funny.... gave me a good laugh