On submission in the bible

[Messy]

Yes, but there's a whole spectrum of power dynamics in relationships. I was just using the term to encompass them all. If one person in a relationship has the final word in the household and is seen as the HOH and spiritual head, that's one version. That's a dominant trait.

It's a loose term. If one person is submitting to the will of the other, that's a power dynamic. Is this not the sort of submission that you're thinking of?

Can be but doesn't have to. If a man is really easy going and likes to please his wife like most Dutch guys I see in equal relationships, suppose a wife all of a sudden starts to say: You decide. I wonder if it makes much difference. What is there to obey if he doesn't really care?
Lol that book I read on submission, one woman responded with: oh my husband told me to throw it away and I did because I'm so obedient lol.

 

[Goodbook]

I think she was just reverencing her husband.

 

[Goodbook]

Hmm.
I think..that a husband has to make decisions. He cant be wishy washy if he really cares and is the head, like Jesus is the head of the church.

Women dont like to wear the pants always. When they do, it just says to everyon else in the household that the husband is weak.

 

[Messy]

Hmm.
I think..that a husband has to make decisions. He cant be wishy washy if he really cares and is the head, like Jesus is the head of the church.

Women dont like to wear the pants always. When they do, it just says to everyon else in the household that the husband is weak.

Yeah a woman wearing the pants is awful, yet I wonder what kind of decisions they have to make anyway if both aren't bossy.

 

[Cearbhall]

Hmm.
I think..that a husband has to make decisions. He cant be wishy washy if he really cares and is the head, like Jesus is the head of the church.

That's what I mean. That's taking the dominant role. I'm not saying it's always a bad thing, but that's what it is. It's not like this is just the way things are. It's a cultural idea like any other.

Women dont like to wear the pants always. When they do, it just says to everyon else in the household that the husband is weak.

We seem to come from very different backgrounds. Nothing wrong with that, though. I like hearing things that surprise me.

 

[SnowyMacie]

We seem to come from very different backgrounds. Nothing wrong with that, though. I like hearing things that surprise me.

Exactly. Personally, I would argue that a man who knows when his wife needs to take the lead and does so, is a bigger man than the one who doesn't. I don't want to marry a woman that's just going to be some kind of "helpmeet" or whatever and just submits to my headship because that's what she thinks is her role as a wife. I want a woman that sees me as her partner, challenges me, and keeps me on my toes.

 

[redblue22]

Hmm.
I think..that a husband has to make decisions. He cant be wishy washy if he really cares and is the head, like Jesus is the head of the church.

Women dont like to wear the pants always. When they do, it just says to everyon else in the household that the husband is weak.

And yet Jesus gives us a zillion decisions to make.

 

[Messy]

And yet Jesus gives us a zillion decisions to make.

Yes that's why a man is so handy. He's busy the whole day making those decisions while I can go play golf until he found out what he wants. You don't have to use your brain yourself, I love that. I'll hand him an aspirin when it gets too much to bear.

 

[redblue22]

I would delegate.

 

[Messy]

Ten Rules for a Happy Marriage:
The woman always makes the rules

These rules are subject to change without notice

No man can possibly know all the rules

The woman is never wrong

If it appears the woman is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding caused by something the man did or said

The man must apologise immediately for causing the misunderstanding

The woman can change her mind at any time

The man must never change his mind without the proper consent of the woman

The man must read the mind of the woman at all times

At all times, what is important is what the woman meant, not what she said.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The exhortation is "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21), that is the universal exhortation to Christians. What follows are a series of examples of what that looks like, and it continues into chapter 6 where the Apostle speaks of parent-child and master-slave relationships. What the Apostle therefore does is take three examples of social relationships and turns the established order on their head. Wives submit to your husbands, sure; but husbands likewise to their wives. Children obey your parents, sure; but parents respect your children. Slaves submit to your masters, sure; but masters do likewise to your slaves.

The exhortation is submit to one another. And this means that there is no social hierarchy in the Church, there is no men in charge and women as underlings; it's men and women as equals, husbands and wives lovingly submitting to one another in love. Because it's not about "obeying" another, and it's not about expecting others to submit to you; it's about recognizing in oneself that we are called to be servants of Jesus Christ and in our call to be servants, servants to one another, helping, aiding, and sharing with one another in imitation of Jesus who is the Servant par excellence.

In fact the passage in Ephesians 5 doesn't make sense without this, here is how Ephesians 5:21-22 looks in the original Greek:

Verse 21 -
ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ

hypotassomenoi allelois en phobo Christou

"submitting yourselves to one another in fear of Christ"

Verse 22 -
αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ

hai gynaikes tois idiois andrasin hos to kyrio

"Wives to the own husbands as to the Lord"

That is to say, "Wives, your own husbands as to the Lord." There's no verb here. That's because the verb is borrowed from above when Paul exhorts universal submission to one another; meaning that "Submit to one another" acts as the heading of this section and what follows are various examples of "submitting to one another out of reverence to Christ".

It is therefore never that women or wives are the submissive party and men/husbands with the reins of power and authority. Instead it is that, in Christ, men and women, husbands and wives, are co-servants in Christ. Servants of one another in love, and servants of others in the Church, and of our fellow man in general.

The very nature of what the kingdom of God means, and what the Church is as a people and community is fundamentally in opposition to top-down power politics. Power dynamics are fundamentally turned on their head as Christ teaches, "The greatest among you is your slave." "The least shall be greatest" "The first shall be last" "Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom" etc.

Pastors are not lords of their churches, but servants, ministering.
Husbands are not lords over their families, but servants of their wife and children.
Etc.

Christ demonstrates what true greatness looks like, not by forceably taking the reins of power and marching against Caesar; but by taking the beatings of the whip and being nailed to the cross forgiving His executioners and mockers. That's the example Christ has left us.



-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Exactly. Personally, I would argue that a man who knows when his wife needs to take the lead and does so, is a bigger man than the one who doesn't. I don't want to marry a woman that's just going to be some kind of "helpmeet" or whatever and just submits to my headship because that's what she thinks is her role as a wife. I want a woman that sees me as her partner, challenges me, and keeps me on my toes.

That is precisely what my boyfriend and dad both said when I asked them for their perspectives on wives being a "help meet" to their husbands.

 

[Toro]

Meh, people worry way to much about who controls things instead of just focusing on eachother.

I will NEVER be a "Yes Dear" kind of man. I will not hesitate to serve my woman as I would expect her to serve me. However I do so out of love and kindness as I expect her motives for doing so are.

I've never been married because the kindness is always eventually seen as weakness and I have to remind her..... I am gentle and soft because I choose to be. Not because I lack backbone. If you are my lady and want a door mat, we will get you one. Mistake me for one and you're out on the curb.

 

[Saricharity]

I don't want to marry a woman that's just going to be some kind of "helpmeet" or whatever and just submits to my headship because that's what she thinks is her role as a wife. I want a woman that sees me as her partner, challenges me, and keeps me on my toes.

My idea of helpmeet isn't someone who just submits to her husbands headship and has no backbone or say in the marriage. I don't see it that way at all. Submission, headship and helpmeet have become like horrible bad words and it's such a shame.

Below is more my idea of what a helpmeet is...
http://teachingwhatisgood.com/question-what-does-it-really-mean-to-be-a-helpmate/
(I did not read the whole blog or everything in her post...I just liked her description that I've attached.)

• I am not a doormat…I do not lie down so my husband can trod on me; I am valuable in the eyes of the Lord in my own right and my ministry is vital to the maturation of my husband (just as his is to me) and to the church
• I am a vital vibrant child of God and have value in who I am before the Lord for all eternity
• I willingly lay down my own wants and desires for the sake of the Lord and to help meet the needs of my husband
• I am my husband’s greatest counsel; God gives insight and wisdom and concerns to me that my husband may not see without me… part of my job is to lovingly share these thoughts with him so that, together (whenever possible) we can make the wisest and best choices for our family
• I am not my husband’s slave although I am called to serve him (God has given him very definite responsibilities in how he is to treat, honor, protect and nurture me), but like Jesus’ service to the church, it is not out of obligation but love
• I am not allowed to take all of my husband’s responsibilities on my shoulders to relieve him of pressure and stress (either out of frustration that he is not doing a good job or out of a desire to help him in times of stress); God has given my husband his own responsibilities and I cannot take over God’s job in my husband’s life
• I need to figure out what my husband’s priorities are for our family and home and work to line my priorities up with his, with his help and guidance if necessary
• I am intelligent in my own right, I do not need my husband because I am stupid or cannot understand scripture for myself, but in my marriage I am not complete without him – God no longer provides the grace for me to live apart from the gifts and talents of my husband (while we are married)
• God gives the responsibility for the direction for our family to my husband, along with input and insight from me, and it is my job to help the children see and follow that direction (as long as it is within the bounds of scripture)

 

[Rhamiel]

Jennae, as always, you speak with great wisdom
it is a pleasure to hear from you

 

[Ada Lovelace]

My idea of helpmeet isn't someone who just submits to her husbands headship and has no backbone or say in the marriage. I don't see it that way at all. Submission, headship and helpmeet have become like horrible bad words and it's such a shame.

Whoa, you brought on a rush of deja vu. I remember the conversation between you and a teacher about this a couple of years ago...... She provided some fantastic scriptural insight and perspective in response to challenge you in a loving way. You know how freaky my memory is, so text me if you want me to recite what she said.

Edit to add -
I read that entire blog post to put her bullet points about being a help meet into context. I vehemently disagree with her views. I do struggle with the term "help meet," for several reasons. I read part of Debi Pearl's Created to be a Help Meet out of curiosity after you introduced me to the term "help meet" when we were fifteen. I later found this post from a Baptist woman who reviewed the book and put many of my own thoughts about it into words:

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/226607-Preparing-to-be-a-Helpmeet?p=2679980#post2679980

All that being said, whether or not it's beneficial for a women to be a "help meet" to her husband depends on whether she's gladly, knowledgeably, and without coercion chosen that role for herself, and on the dynamics of the couple. I do not think young girls should be raised with the notion that they were created by God to become help meets for their husbands, and that it's the only honorable role they can chose for themselves. It saddens me when I learn about bright teenage girls who lack ambition and are not developing plans for their future because they aspire to marry right out of high school and become a help meet to their husbands, and let his life be what determines theirs. They do not let their own potential and dreams flourish. It's different if a mature, educated woman makes the informed decision to be a help meet, and if the husband behaves in such a way that it is mutually empowering.

And to paraphrase what another friend here wrote, submissiveness shouldn't be permanent, and should be contingent upon the husband being in submission to both the laws of authority where he lives and to Jesus. There have been horrific abuses throughout history due to misguided beliefs about women and submission.

 

[Cearbhall]

Submission, headship and helpmeet have become like horrible bad words and it's such a shame.

They're horrible concepts when people are pressured into them, or worse, forced. I don't have any problem with people who freely choose it. However, to me, there's a big difference between choosing to play at these roles on occasion and thinking that you were actually created to fill a certain one of them at all times. The latter mindset doesn't really lend itself to consent. It puts the labels on people arbitrarily rather than letting them be who they really are.

 

[Rhamiel]

They're horrible concepts when people are pressured into them, or worse, forced. I don't have any problem with people who freely choose it. However, to me, there's a big difference between choosing to play at these roles on occasion and thinking that you were actually created to fill one of them. The latter mindset doesn't really lend itself to consent. It puts the labels on people arbitrarily rather than letting them be who they really are.

can we say that about other moral/societal issues?

"it is nice when people CHOOSE to take care of the poor.... but if they feel that they are forced to, or have an obligation to take care of the poor, then it does not really lend itself to consent"

I mean... does that work too?

if you think that this is how human beings should act, then this is how you think people should act...

I do not think I am making myself clear

 

[Cearbhall]

can we say that about other moral/societal issues?

"it is nice when people CHOOSE to take care of the poor.... but if they feel that they are forced to, or have an obligation to take care of the poor, then it does not really lend itself to consent"

I mean... does that work too?

No. I'm impressed by the degree of this stretch.

 

[Rhamiel]

it is an exaggeration, but it is the same basic principle

but I was trying to say it in a way that people understand, that is why the exaggeration.


so many people try and put morality as a choice between chocolate and vanilla
yeah it is nice if you like it, but if you do not, no big deal

it is something deeper then that