Instigating Headship/Submission?

[whatseekye]

Thank you for your response. I have prayed about this issue many times. I have asked Jesus to help me to feel about this topic the way He wants me to feel. So far, I've only been pointed to the scriptures I've mentioned (submitting to each other and love not wanting its own) and wondering why those passages are not given equal weight to "wives be submissive to your husbands.".

Good questions. I respect your intention to seek your answers straight from the Bible and from the Lord. I have to admit that my general feeling agrees with what you said here. I truly believe there must be balance in reading scripture, and you have to look at the whole picture. I think it's pretty clear that we are all on equal ground with God and he accepts us on the same basis, regardless of whether we are men or women, etc. We have to have that perspective, and the perspective of the Holiness and righteousness of God when we try to understand matters like this. Because I trust God, I know that what he has planned for me is good. So, the question is, how can we trust that God is good and also read these scriptures and understand what they are saying about marriage?

I don't want to analyze each particular passage or get in to complicated arguments. I want to try to bring some clarity and reality to this question of how men and women are to behave towards each other in marriage.

First of all, we all agree that pagans, athiests, agnostics, and even heretics can make great husbands and wives. The fact is, for every bad marriage you can point to, there is also a fabulous, loving and good marriage. Christians often have horrible marriages, and the divorce rates are quite high from what I hear. So there's nothing special when it comes to a "Christian marriage" in the sense of automatically having some special gaurantee or perfect performance.

But, I truly believe and understand the description of marriage in the passages we've been arguing about here as a description of two serious disciples of Christ who are approaching their marital relationship as a devotion to God through devotion to each other. You have a man and a woman who are loving each other "as to the Lord".

I think of people I know at church who are always serving at church. They spend so much time there. They volunteer for multiple jobs at church. They work so hard! I don't know them in their personal lives but I wonder, as I struggle to understand how to understand Christian marriage, are they serving each other at home as intently and devotionally as they serve strangers at church?

I think when you are serious about your faith, you want to yield every aspect of your life to Jesus and live your life as a devotion to Him. If you give everything else to God, yet you insist on your marriage being for your own personal enjoyment, then it's like there is this area of hypocrisy. I find that I feel awful because I will see myself cheerfully serving in church situations in a very patient and considerate manner, yet I'm not living that way at home. That's called being a hypocrite. I hate that in myself, and so I agonized about it in prayer. Then I found that God started to change my heart. I actually want to serve my husband. I want to be patient and kind to him. I want to put aside my selfish desires and reactions, and look to his needs and desires.

So let me say right now that I do not think that a carnal Christian can have this because this desire must come out of relationship to God and conformity to Christ. This is a spiritual thing. This is not about being "right" or having the "best" marriage or looking good to others or about being a real woman or a real man through idealized Christian gender roles in marriage. It's about not being a hypocrite at home with the person closest to you...that is your husband or your wife. In Christianity, discipleship is described as being a servant, being humble, serving others in love, etc. Jesus Christ himself lived out this example as he served others and he didn't exercise all his rights. He could have judged man and made people wither up like the fig tree. But he was gentle and even in his indignation, he exercised great restraint and patience. For all Christian women and men, there is no other example for us to follow. It's so clear but we have to make it in to something ugly and worldly. Let's turn from that and get real with Jesus about this issue in the privacy of our own lives and relationships.

 

[Johnnz]

I don't agree with male headship as a positional authority role for two reasons.

1 There is no biblical basis to equate headship with leadership. Given that there are several meanings for the word translated 'head' in Paul's letters I have yet to see a sound exegetical basis that clearly establishes an 'in charge' meaning to any verse where the word occurs in the marriage relationship. Nowhere in the NT is it stated that a wife is to obey her husband.

2 The paradigm for submission generally goes God-Jesus-pastor-man-woman. That there is a hierarchy of position between Jesus and other members of His family would have been seen as heresy by the NT writers. We all have direct access to Him, as the only head of the church.

Various posts about confusion etc where there is not a designated leader simply express a preconditioned mindset. We have operated within a house church for more than 8 years without any need for a designated 'leader'. I recognise the role of leadership in the NT, based on a person's gifting, but as with all gifts each forms only a part of the body's function and is interdependant on all the others ( see 1 Cor 12).

There is a fear of a leadership style that differs so markedly from our cultural pattern stereotype that we are very uneasy with the thought of anything else. Here Paul is instructive. In his letters he often addresses some problem(s) with a Christian community. He gives advice to teh whole church, never just to its leaders to then go and sort them out. Paul belived the chuch as an entire group of believers was capable, under the direction of the holy Spirit and in subjection to Jesus, to deal with the issues confronting them.

I reject the label 'egalatarian' (unless I can use one such as 'male supremicists' to describe those who have taken issue with what I have written). My concern is what, in fact, the bible actually teaches. Having been conditioned to the husband as leader for many years, it has only been through extensive study that i have come to accept that the balance of exegetical accuracy does not lie with the traditional teaching. Plus, my growing awareness that 'leadership' or my 'authority' can be no more than selfishness, ignorance, or just irrelevance. That does concern me, as it highlight yet again that any and all authority must be countered with accountibility and limits. This is why I (reluctantly and fearfully in practice I must admit) see mutual submission as neccessary.

John
NZ

 

[hazeleyes80]

Well, that's actually what I was referring to, too.





Why? God uses many different analogies to describe His relationship with us--parent/child, master/slave, husband/wife, sheperd/sheep, head/body, vine/branch--all of them having a degree of mutual submission involved, BUT all of them also having a strong degree of AUTHORITY relationship as well.

It's sad how many of you seem to be thinking that only one aspect can be true at a time: for you, it's either mutual submission or it's authority roles, and "ne'er the twain shall meet." Well...not so in God's World (and not so in my marraige, either--heehee!)...

But back to your issue of "scary..."

What's scary about using an analogy? Nobody suggests it conforms completely to the subject, but there are related similarities, and that's all the analogy is trying to bring out.

I would say that you find it scary because you have a false definition of authority and submission, and possibly also because there is rebellion in your own heart that you have yet to deal with. I know that's a very bold thing to say, but please don't think I say it with evil intent--and I do admit that it's only a possibility (because how can I know your heart?! ).

I just know that for me, marital authority issues in Scripture had a very distasteful feel, almost made me sick to my stomach, actually, but all that was resolved when I finally had my eyes opened (by God, of course!) to what God's definition of all of it meant, to what God's definition of authority meant, of it's purpose and design...and opened to the rebellion nurtured in my own heart towards my Yahweh... Your comments on this thread are almost identical to my former thoughts...I just always find that interesting.

But anyways...
(And this is a question not just for ChristianGradStudent but for all egalitarians):


God Himself likens the marraige relationship to a shepherd (the husband) and a sheep/lamb (the wife).

[See Nathan's "analogy" to David, regarding the sin of Uriah and Bathsheba]. Just out of curiousity, if how do you deal with that? If husbands and wives operate in mutual submission ONLY, then how do you deal with God's choice of analogy in 2 Samuel?


Warm Regards,
Molly

Sorry it took so long to reply. I sprained my shoulder quite badly a few days ago. Now that the pain is more tolerable, I can finally type.

You asked me what I find so scary about a marriage being compared to a parent/child relationship. I find that scary because grown women aren't children anymore. We've already been raised by parents. I just don't understand why women would want a second childhood. I know what I'm about to say is a bold statement, but when I look at women in relationships where the man makes all the decisions, I often wonder if they are truly trying to follow what they are interpreting in the Bible or if they're afraid to make a decision and would rather that their husband screw things up and be blamed while they remain blameless because he was the one who made the decision. I'm not saying it's any one way in all instances of the husband taking an almost paternal role (I'm sure in at least some instances the wife actually isn't afraid to make a decision), but it does make me wonder. But I'll tell you what, I'd rather just buy a couple of German Shepards and live alone instead of ever going through the hell that is "childhood" for a second time.

 

[Svt4Him]

How on earth you get that submission means no decisions are made, or that a woman become a second child is beyond me.

 

[shania]

Svet4him,

I think it would be easier to understand ChristianGradStudent's post if you only focus on the comments made by the CONSERVATIVE Christians and for 5 minutes just PRETEND in your mind that you were a woman and how different you would be treated by other Christians that think like this....

If you seriouly wanted to give this some objective thought, you could think about how you would be respected and trusted to make sound judgements as a woman, be told to let the man take care of everything and not worry about it.

Essentially be encouraged to become a more passive, dependant and needy person instead of being built up to be stronger, confident, a good decision maker, a role model for others, and to help people and push them up when they need it, rather than be the one needing help because some men feel threatened and think they are less needed if a woman is more confident or stronger then they are.

(Which is not the case, men are extremely important, just as important as women).

These are just a few ideas.... But if you really wanted to think about this objectively for a few minutes I'm sure we could all have an informative and enlightening conversation about it.


By the way ChristianGradStudent, not all Christians think like this, so it's not worth ruffling your feathers about it.

If that were the case I would be joining you with the 2 dogs, but I'd personally get a pair of Labrador Retrievers.

 

[hazeleyes80]

If you seriouly wanted to give this some objective thought, you could think about how you would be respected and trusted to make sound judgements as a woman, be told to let the man take care of everything and not worry about it.

Essentially be encouraged to become a more passive, dependant and needy person instead of being built up to be stronger, confident, a good decision maker, a role model for others, and to help people and push them up when they need it, rather than be the one needing help because the men think they are less needed if a woman is more confident or stronger then they are.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say all along. I really need to learn to be more concise. It would save me a lot of time posting if I could just spit all of it out at once!

 

[hazeleyes80]

How on earth you get that submission means no decisions are made, or that a woman become a second child is beyond me.

This is why I have come to those conclusions:

1. From the various posts I've seen on this site, the general concensus seems to be that in a Christian marriage, the husband makes all of the final decisions, but the wife can have "input."

2. The very definition of authoritative/egalitarian parenting is that the parents make all of the final decisions, but the children can have "input."

 

[Leanna]

Michael, I believe quite a while ago you wanted to know my scriptural reasoning for why I believe Christian relationships can and should be equal. I could tell you about how I think we take one verse that talks about submission and ignore the many about love being sacrificial, etc. etc. But
I have heard many of my ideas repeated time and time again. So let me take an angle I don't think anyone has touched. But if someone has, forgive me, I had to read fast to get this in!

Let me tell you about the Believers freedom. Allow me to share a passage:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegtables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

"One man considers one day more sacred than another, another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks for God: and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

"For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life ... You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgement seat... So, then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another... I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself, but if anyone regards something as unclean then for him it is unclean. "
(Romans 14, the ... are parts I skipped because I am in a hurry, but you can read them )

Now from what I have gathered from reading this thread many of you already know how to read and understand scripture so I will not hold your hand through this. This passage is obviously about two main issues: food sarificed to idols, and holy days. Converted Jews and converted Greeks did not understand one another. etc. etc. But as the idea of this passage is one repeated in different ways in different parts of the Bible let us talk more broadly. There are many issues that are highly debated by Christians, and the issue of women's roles is one of them. I don't believe that my role as a woman needs to be under my husband. All my reasons have been stated by others, but even if they hadn't this passage speaks my heart.

1. If you live believing in men-women submission, then do it unto the Lord. I fully believe that a 50-50 relationship is permissible and can work good for many relationships. If you feel it is wrong, it is wrong for you. "I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself, but if anyone regards something as unclean then for him it is unclean."

2. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? So long as I serve the Lord and my husband and I agree on our roles, who are you to say otherwise? "and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

3. Some people are able to read the Bible and interpret it in a different light than others. I don't want this to come out wrong. I just think some people aren't....... trapped in these roles, we shall say. There is nothing wrong with that. "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters."

So if you want to think I am a horrible woman Christian for believing that women can have equal roles, and it can be positive, that's your business. But I feel no guilt-- to me, this is also an acceptable practice of Biblical law.

 

[alaskamolly]

Ok, I'm going to repeat this question...

Any egalitarian/mutual-submission devotees wanna take a stab at this one?

God Himself likens the marriage relationship
to a shepherd (the husband)
and a sheep/lamb (the wife).

[See Nathan's "analogy" to David, regarding the sin of Uriah and Bathsheba].

Just out of curiousity, if how do you deal with that? If husbands and wives operate in mutual submission ONLY, then how do you deal with God's choice of analogy in 2 Samuel?

Thanks.

 

[shania]

My answer is that if a husband is to be as Jesus is to the church and if the husband is the shepard and the wife the sheep this is in the SPIRITUAL SENSE.

Jesus was not the interior decorator of the church (ex: what furniture to buy), he was not the family planner (how many kids a family should have), he was not a career advisor (never told people what trade they should go into or what trade their sons should go into), nor a travel agent (when and where the family needs to go on vacation), etc.....He was not an investment banker (making decisions about how much money to put into savings, unless it dealt with giving to the poor or to the church), and above all, he never pushed anyone to follow him (some of what I see on the forum here regarding their attitudes on this topic).

Jesus was the good example. He did not say we have the be the good example first (translation - wives following husbands before their husbands show Christ-like behavior). Jesus was the good example and his behavior made us want to follow, not the other way around.

It was interesting to hear from an old pastor of mine that there was a study done on mothers and fathers and the likelihood of their children going to church as adults based on who went to church in the family.

Adult children were more likely to be church goers if only the father went to church, compared to families where only the mother went. I find this very interesting and it only reinforces the idea we read in the bible about men being the SPIRITUAL LEADER of the family.

 

[LiberatedChick]

Though to take the analogy of the shepherd (husband) and sheep (wife). A shepherd doesn't guide his sheep to a church, he does nothing for them in a spiritual sense. Not that I'm saying a husband shouldn't be a spiritual leader but according the the above analogy he should be more than that. A shepherd guides his sheep, he keeps them from danger and decides where's the best place for them to be (obviously somewhere with food, water, shelter, lack of predators etc). Therefore if a marriage was to fit this analogy a husband must keep him and his wife in the best place they can be. In this day an age that would mean keeping the couple financially stable, with a roof over there heads and protected from many dangers of the world. The shepherd is the leader of the sheep and likewise a husband should be a leader of the husband and wife team. I've said it many times now that IMO a husband and wife are a team and every team needs a leader. The leader is in no way better than anyone else. They are just the person chosen to finalise things...they collate the information and opinions given to them and form conclusions and necessary actions based upon it.

I am submissive to my husband and it's nothing like a second childhood at all. I am my own person, an individual with thoughts, feelings and needs. I have my own personality, freedom, strength and confidence. It's also nothing to do with having someone to blame when something goes wrong. IMO A husband and wife are a TEAM and in a team if something mucks up EVERYONE is accountable...both the leader and the team members. Yes, the leader came up with the final conclusion and made the decision but that was based on information and opinions of himself and the team members. So since the information and opinions on which the decision was based came from both of them if something goes wrong both are responsible and to "blame".

 

[shania]

Well men are generally bigger and stonger than women so I see how that fits in with the idea of physically protecting a woman. God wouldn't want a man to use that physical advantage to harm a woman, but rather to protect her.

I believe the traditional idea of physically and materially providing for a woman comes from "pre family planning" times and it made sense that if a woman had a child the man would be materially responsible for it because the woman could not earn money if she was in labour, breast fed and had to make food and meals from scratch.

Now we have family planning options, frozen dinners and crock pots, breast milk pumps and maternity leave with pay and some churches still deal with these issues according to old-school rules. How should we handle these issues? Ignore them and pretend they don't exist?

A shepard leads, but leadership covers a wide range of areas and what should he be leading?

Did Jesus spend his numbered days advising people how many goats the family should buy, as opposed to camels? Or did he tell people Let the dead bury the dead and come and follow me?

Jesus lead people back on track to the kingdom of God and did waste his numbered days meddling with worldy issues and arguements. He was not self-righteous and did not impose his wishes on us. We have complete freedom to follow his spiritual lead to the kingdom of God.

I truly believe he did not die on the cross so we can decide if a couple should go to New York or Texas for vacation.......or if they should buy the house in Carla and Nick's neighbourhood instead of the one with a good bowling alley.

At the same time, each couple needs to decide how they will make decisions. And if one wants to let the man decide everything and the woman is fine with that, then so be it....it is her decision to be with a man who feels this way.

But what if a man thinks differently and believes Jesus did not lead the church regarding petty/material issues, and only spiritual ones? What if he wants to be in a relationship where they both decide and share the responibility of making these kinds of decisions? I believe Christian couples have the right and freedom to function in this manner as well, and still have a healthy and exemplary Christian relationship.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

My wife is my buddy, my equal partner in the gospel.
Marriage for me is a sacrifice of freedoms I once had to enter into a partnership with my wife, and I'm sure it's the same for her. We have a mutual respect for each other.
My marriage could not be any better.

 

[LiberatedChick]

He was not self-righteous and did not impose his wishes on us.

Neither do husbands with submitting wives. A marriage is a team imo and a team leader does not impose their wishes on people. They make sound decisions based on facts and the majority of the time everyone in the team agrees with the decision.

I truly believe he did not die on the cross so we can decide if a couple should go to New York or Texas for vacation.......or if they should buy the house in Carla and Nick's neighbourhood instead of the one with a good bowling alley.

These are very trivial things though, deciding where to go on holiday is generally not a life changing decision where leadership is required imo. Submission isn't about wives following their husbands around like slaves saying "yes sir" to every command. If such a minor decision was causing major disagreement then maybe submission is the answer....more possibly though the answer would be for the couple to re-assess their views on what's actually needed in this world and their relationship.

There are many major decisions which shape our lives...some in good ways and some in bad. Issues need to be resolved. So what if they are material things?....material things can cause a heck of a lot of arguments and/or stress no matter how devoted to the Lord you are. These things therefore need addressing, else there's the risk of just buring our heads in the sand, ignoring what life throws at us and not learning anything during our stay on this earth.

 

[Johnnz]

My answer is that if a husband is to be as Jesus is to the church and if the husband is the shepard and the wife the sheep this is in the SPIRITUAL SENSE.

The reference to Nathan is simply wrong. Nathan was not referring to the husband/wife relationship, but to the king/people relationship. David had broken the requirement to be a protector of his subjects by Killing Uriah.

No husband has a role that intervenes between his wife's own relationship and acountability with God. He is responsible for how well he measures up to the standard set by Christ in his relationship with his wife, at that alone.

John
NZ

 

[alaskamolly]

Nathan was not referring to the husband/wife relationship, but to the king/people relationship.

Hmmmmm... Ok.

So Uriah was initially the shepherd over the lamb...wait a minute, Uriah wasn't a King. So why did God say that Uriah was also a shepherd figure, if he wasn't the king?


Molly

 

[alaskamolly]

No husband has a role that intervenes between his wife's own relationship and acountability with God.

Really?

That's interesting, because in the Old Testament, if a wife made a vow to God but her husband didn't approve, he could annul that vow and it would no longer be valid and she would not be held accountable for breaking it (though, of course, if it was an appropriate vow, he would then bear the consequences of her breaking it).




Whether or not this is true today is up for grabs, but it is awful interesting to me that God Himself set up this rule, which obviously seems to give a husband authority EVEN over aspects of his wife's direct relationship with God.

Now, to be sure, it's a fearful authority--in that he's in big trouble with the Big Boss should he choose to use his authority wrongfully. But I think 1 Peter 3:7 shows that same thing to be true today, in NT times, as husbands are reminded to exercise their delegated authority very carefully--because, in a spiritual-standing sense, they and their wives are equal partners and full heirs TOGETHER.


Warm Regards,
Molly
(Who is also wondering what you guys do to get rid of 1 Peter 3, now that it's been brought up)...

 

[Svt4Him]

In all honesty, I think the reason the North American church is so ineffective is we don't understand authority. The Roman soldier who came to Jesus and said he recognized Jesus' authority was commended as having great faith.

But that's a different topic.

 

[shania]

My question in an earlier post still goes unanswered: What if the husband wishes to share the decision-making process, if it is his desire for the decisions to be made as a couple?

Because I believe the husband is the head of the wife in the sense that there are many abused women who illogically stay with their abusive husbands. Whether the couple is Christian or not, I think it can be attributed to the fact that women give in to their man much more often than the other way around and the husband often becomes the HEAD of the wife.

Look at how much women, in general, mourn over a man and men are often more able to pick up and move on when a relationship is over, even if the man did not treat her right or if the relationship wasn't so good between them. (YES, I know there are exceptions, I am just talking about generalities).

It's like a psychological fact, I think, that many women end up passing over the dominant position to the man in a relationship after a certain point in time. Or some women become dominant but in a passive way so the man will think that he is in charge.

Anyhow, my question still remains: What if the man wants to be in a partnership where the couple makes mutual decisions? If this is what he wants to do, then does this give the right for someone other than that man and woman to criticise the way their relationship operates or tell them they need to change it?

 

[Sascha Fitzpatrick]

Shania,

Ultimately it is THEIR marriage, and they have to be the ones who make the decision on how their marriage will be run in regards to headship/submission. So long as they stay firm to what they believe is right BIBLICALLY (of course this only stands if they are a Christian couple), then they shouldn't give two hoots about what others think or speculate.

This thread was started by me, as a question on how to start instigating headship/submission (as described at www.themarriagebed.com - as I feel this is the closest to the Biblical viewpoint of it) when still in a serious dating relationship, but to also get information from married couples on how they have decided on decision making and headship in their household.

If you feel that your marriage is perfectly healthy with the parameters you have in place in regards to these issues - then good for you! Great to hear that marriages are going really well, with differing ways of doing things!

I just wanted some opinions - I didn't want to have people putting others down because their belief systems on headship/submission were different to theirs. I understand those who don't understand the other group's viewpoints asking questions, but I got very upset when I saw people start putting down other peoples viewpoints, just cos they didn't agree with it.

But if the marriage is working well with no issues as a result of the way headship/equal headship has been set up in the marriage, then good on you! Stuff what other people say and criticise you for - if it is working for you, and you personally aren't getting any conflictions from God about it, then go for it!

Just cos I believe that B will be the head of my household (with plenty of input and respect for my opinions in that decision making, and so far having no major disagreements about the way anything should be done, and letting me have final say on issues I know more about), doesn't mean I have the right to put down others who do it differently. I may disagree with them, and I can question them about it, but if my posts get to the point where I'm saying 'you're viewpoint is stupid and you're heading for divorce and God hates your marriage', then ban me immediately!

Sasch