Wifely Submission

[NeTrips]

Taking into account that pretty much everything that's asked for of the dominating male has to be delivered by the submissive wife (since it's rare that a man would want a wife that didn't "support, provide for, nurture, love, care for, provide safety, promote his best interests, etc), it seems a pretty cheap trade to sacrafice your voice and part of the authority in your life and most of it in your family, simply for love, no matter how big the love may be in words or deeds.

(emphasis mine)

You've touched on the key fault to your premise. Christian have already submitted their wills to God so the Christian wife is not submitting her will to her husband, but has already submitted her will to God. If you have already submitted your will to God and God then directs you to submit to the will of your husband who has already submitted his will to God, then in effect, you are simply re-submitting your will to that of God's, something the Christian wife has already done.

This really brings home the scriptural instruction as to not being unequally yoked.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Close. The totality of my reasoning is actually because God says so. What more does a Christian need for argument but the one unerring source?

All hail Big Brother.

 

[NeTrips]

All hail Big Brother.

All hail the Father would be more accurate and a much better object of worship and adoration.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

(emphasis mine)

You've touched on the key fault to your premise. Christian have already submitted their wills to God so the Christian wife is not submitting her will to her husband, but has already submitted her will to God. If you have already submitted your will to God and God then directs you to submit to the will of your husband who has already submitted his will to God, then in effect, you are simply re-submitting your will to that of God's, something the Christian wife has already done.

This really brings home the scriptural instruction as to not being unequally yoked.

In practical terms, what does that mean? It means wives submitting to their husbands. However you put it, whichever ancient theology you use to prop it up, whatever unverifiable spiritual 'submissions' are going on, it is sexism, pure and simple.

 

[NeTrips]

In practical terms, what does that mean? It means wives submitting to their husbands. However you put it, whichever ancient theology you use to prop it up, whatever unverifiable spiritual 'submissions' are going on, it is sexism, pure and simple.

I'm not sure how you are defining "practical terms" or "ancient theology" (my God is alive, so what is it that you are saying?).

Define "sexism" as well so we can understand your objection. Thanks.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I'm not sure how you are defining "practical terms" or "ancient theology" (my God is alive, so what is it that you are saying?).

Define "sexism" as well so we can understand your objection. Thanks.

Well, in practical terms, for example, if a husband tells a wife to do something morally neutral in itself, she must do it.

The theology you are using has been used to justify patriarchy in spite of its obviously objectionable nature for millenia. In that sense your theology is ancient. Obviously, we're not going to agree on whether 'your god' is alive. Suffice to say I strongly doubt that he is, ever has been or ever will be. His existence can be invoked to in an attempt to justify injustice til we're all blue in the face...it won't make it a reality.

Sexism here is the belief that one sex is inherently and universally inferior to the other, or ought to be subservient. And let's not get into ridiculous ideas about the supposed dignity of being a doormat. If a wife is to submit to her husband as the Bible mandates then she is subservient and inferior.

 

[NeTrips]

....
The theology you are using has been used to justify patriarchy in spite of its obviously objectionable nature for millenia.

The bolded test makes a claim that you have not supported. Why is the familly structure God has laid out for Christians to follow objectionable to Christians? No one is asking non-Christains to abide by this instruction here....

Sexism here is the belief that one sex is inherently and universally inferior to the other, or ought to be subservient. And let's not get into ridiculous ideas about the supposed dignity of being a doormat. If a wife is to submit to her husband as the Bible mandates then she is subservient and inferior.

I completely disagree with your claim that submitting one's will to God makes one person inferior to another person.

Did you really mean to imply that being a Christian makes someone inferior to a non-Christian or was that due to inaccurate reasoning?

 

[NeTrips]

Again, a great theory for men who are submitted to by women as if they were God to the woman, but a pretty chilly exchange when all you get back is love.

If all a wife gets back is love then the husband is not living as instructed by God.

equal marriage with an equal partner....

please show me where equal marriage is a biblical principle to be held up and admired. It sounds more like an idol to me.

It's better that men who think they should be honored like God for the sake of God by a woman who believes her only contribution as a woman is to submit to this God-husband all just stick together.

I agree, hopefully they will stay in the camp of the non-believers as what you describe resembles nothing of the Christian men and women I know who follow God and believe in His precepts.

Having a party of either type with a partner who demands equality will only bring misery.

How very true. Whenever a believer is yoked with a non-believer, the believer is living outside of God's expressed desire and true harmony will be hard to come by.

 

[Libre]

We are joint heirs and equal. We submit one to another out of love, not out of compulsion. And we obey God, not man. I have studied this in the past, and those are my conclusions. Part of what I found is this: Paul was speaking in the context of culture and tradition. He was not laying down rules for all time. And he was big on telling believers not to act in such a way as to make the people of God a laughingstock. Too much freedom too fast, in other words, is not understood by those still on the milk of the word.

Believers have the Holy Spirit within as their guide. If you truly believe in salvation by the sovereign grace of God, then the freedom in Christ means that we are guided, not by external rules, but by the rule of the Spirit in us. As soon as we say this or that is required, in addition to what Christ has done, then the cross has lost it's power. So, to require submission is wrong. It then becomes a dead work. IMO

Libre

 

[gengwall]

Wow - did this thing pop up out of the dusty archives and get rolling. I covered much of the same ground in my thread on patriarchy. I am not going to read 50 pages of posts, but will just jump in (or is it cannonball in).

Biblical submission is not what many both inside and outside the church have made it out to be.

Here is the note in Strongs on the word hupotasso

A Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in amilitary fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

As Christians, we are to hupotasso to each other. The term in its use in marriage does not indicate ANYTHING about authority to make decisions or about particular roles. The biblical picture of marriage is clear - the husband and wife are equals in all respects EXCEPT, the husband, as head, is charged with serving the family, interceeding on behalf of the family, and being ultimately accountable for the families actions before God. (Note, it doesn't mean the wife can't do these things also, it means only that the husband is required to). Nowhere does the bible outline any familial tasks or roles for either gender, nor does it indicate that either spouse has authority over the other. We are all equally created in God's image, equal heirs to the kingdom, and equally gifted for life and minstry.

 

[gengwall]

If we were to pick a contemporary object as the example of what "headship" and "submission" looks like, it would certainly not be the ones usually picked. "boss", "coach", "general" are all bad illustrations because God is all of these, not the husband in a relationship. I think the best example is "team captain". On a team (the family), the captain is a servant leader. He has responsibilities given to him by the coach (God) to interceed for the team and to be accountable for their actions. But he does not have authority to unilaterally make any decisions, plan any strategy, or to require compliance out of the team. That authority still rests with the coach. Indeed, the captian is, for the most part, only the spiritual leader of the team. In fact, the captain may not even be the most skilled, gifted, or even hardest working (although he should be) person on the team and the captain certainly doesn't fill all roles or any specific roles on the team.

 

[NeTrips]

If equality in marriage isn't a Biblical principle, and isn't something that's admired, it sounds like the Bible is more horribly outdated then I feared.

Than you feared? You mean you don't know? So are you really telling me that you are have been commenting on something that you in actuality have not read and studied? wow....

 

[Ramona]

I agree. I love my husband with all my heart, too (although the Bible doesn't say that I have to - only to respect and obey him - but what sort of wife doesn't love her husband, even though the Bible is silent on that???) - and if that's not wrong, then I don't see why it would be wrong for a husband to do something that the Bible isn't explicit about either (but doesn't say they aren't allowed to do), i.e. submitting to their wives?

Besides, as christians we are to submit to one another, so in that light, husbands are definitely allowed to submit to their wives (assuming they are people, or even christians, too).

What's wrong with mutual submission to each other and to God?

My husband doesn't want me to submit - what am I to do? If I do submit, I disobey him. If I don't, I obey him, but he doesn't want me to.

Amen to that, my dear!

I've changed my opinion drastically since I voted in this poll. I voted "other/not sure" then, but now I'm thinking that it's archaic.

I'm a human being. I have my own values. My own virtues. My own morals. I love cats and babies. I hate makeup and shaving. I don't shower every day, and I only cut my dreadlocks off when they were preventing me from getting a job. I make my own money and I make my own decisions. I am compassionate, opinionated, and loud about those opinions. I do civil rights work and explore my spirituality in my free time. I comfort the afflicted. I afflict the comfortable.

I'm an eating, sleeping, loving, hurting, thinking, feeling woman. I'm not a Barbie doll.

If and when I get married, I'm not going to "obey my husband." I'll write my own vows; that "obey" part gives me the heebie-jeebies. On another forum which I am an active part of, someone quoted a woman who said, "Yes, women have rights...the rights to submit to God!" She said this after declaring that she was put "here" on Earth to be her husband's "slave."

No. Just...no. There's nothing Godly about that mindset. For a man to love his partner as Christ loved His church is noble indeed, but what does that mean? And who actually does that? There is no greater love than that of Christ, but I've seen a lot of conservative Christians say that a woman's place is in the house, raising the children, cooking and cleaning, and having sex whenever the man wants it, when he wants it. The thought of that breaks my heart.

If I settle down with a man, he won't be the head of the house. He's going to have to share. And he sure as anything won't be the head of the wife.

Sorry to ramble, but I feel very strongly about this.

Peace.

 

[Rebekka]

If submission is such a great thing, would a man be OK submitting to his wife as she's expected to submit to him?

That's what this is all about, to me. If submission doesn't mean that we're inferior etc., then why don't husbands want to submit to their wives, too? What's wrong with it, if it's so noble and great? The Bible doesn't say a husband CAN'T submit to his wife (the Bible doesn't say a wife shouldn't love her husband, either!), so what's keeping the husbands?

(I do know at least one christian husband who submits to his wife as she does to him - my own wonderful husband who respects me as his equal and loves me with all his heart, more than his own life. And yes, both women and men are individuals with own individual character traits and needs. Women need to be respected just as men need to, and men need to be loved just as men need to. I don't believe in strict gender roles, personally.)

 

[Ramona]

That's what this is all about, to me. If submission doesn't mean that we're inferior etc., then why don't husbands want to submit to their wives, too? What's wrong with it, if it's so noble and great?

Great point. Reppage to you, fellow cat-lady.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

The bolded test makes a claim that you have not supported. Why is the familly structure God has laid out for Christians to follow objectionable to Christians? No one is asking non-Christains to abide by this instruction here....

It is objectionable that men should be considered to have authority over women because of their gender.

I completely disagree with your claim that submitting one's will to God makes one person inferior to another person.

Did you really mean to imply that being a Christian makes someone inferior to a non-Christian or was that due to inaccurate reasoning?

I wasn't saying that I believe women are inferior, but that the system of control and authority as it is given by Paul shows that he considers women inferior. If you want to believe that this was inspired and that 'god' therefore also believes women are inferior, very well. And if god's will is therefore supposedly that wives should always 'submit', that the man is the head of the household and that women ought to never have authority over men then yes, god is saying that women are inferior.

 

[NeTrips]

It is objectionable that men should be considered to have authority over women because of their gender.

in your opinion it is such. So a man should never coach a female sports team, that is an example of a man having authority over women becuase of gender....

I wasn't saying that I believe women are inferior, but that the system of control and authority as it is given by Paul shows that he considers women inferior. If you want to believe that this was inspired and that 'god' therefore also believes women are inferior, very well. And if god's will is therefore supposedly that wives should always 'submit', that the man is the head of the household and that women ought to never have authority over men then yes, god is saying that women are inferior.

So you speak for God now? How about letting Him speak for Himself: Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This says nothing of being inferior. Just as God laid out His plan for His Tabernacle, the ordering of the tribes, the distribution of land, the building of His temple, etc. He has laid out His plan for marriage and it is good.

 

[Libre]

As I read it, Paul is showing how we ought to live in Christ, in mutual submission. He is also using Christ and the Church as the model. He then says that he is actually speaking of Christ and the Church. In another place, he talks about how a wife is bound to her husband until death, etc. He is not there telling us there can never be divorce. He is showing the model of the church, and using marriage as the example they could understand. A metaphor, if you will.

Paul continually does two things. He uses custom and tradition to show how the church operates. He also teaches that believers should live in such a way as to be in peace in the midst of unbelieving neighbors - a witness to the living God and to his son who saved them.

Libre

He is not putting unreasonable constraints on us who live far removed from his day. I doubt he even realized that his words would still be read and picked apart thousands of years later.

 

[gengwall]

It is objectionable that men should be considered to have authority over women because of their gender.



I wasn't saying that I believe women are inferior, but that the system of control and authority as it is given by Paul shows that he considers women inferior. If you want to believe that this was inspired and that 'god' therefore also believes women are inferior, very well. And if god's will is therefore supposedly that wives should always 'submit', that the man is the head of the household and that women ought to never have authority over men then yes, god is saying that women are inferior.

I think an entire review of Paul's teaching reveals that he had no such idea. Women were prominant in his ministry, he put no universal restrictions on women serving in church, and he made no gender restrictions when it came to discussing the distribution of gifts.

 

[gengwall]

Amen to that, my dear!

I've changed my opinion drastically since I voted in this poll. I voted "other/not sure" then, but now I'm thinking that it's archaic.

I'm a human being. I have my own values. My own virtues. My own morals. I love cats and babies. I hate makeup and shaving. I don't shower every day, and I only cut my dreadlocks off when they were preventing me from getting a job. I make my own money and I make my own decisions. I am compassionate, opinionated, and loud about those opinions. I do civil rights work and explore my spirituality in my free time. I comfort the afflicted. I afflict the comfortable.

I'm an eating, sleeping, loving, hurting, thinking, feeling woman. I'm not a Barbie doll.

If and when I get married, I'm not going to "obey my husband." I'll write my own vows; that "obey" part gives me the heebie-jeebies. On another forum which I am an active part of, someone quoted a woman who said, "Yes, women have rights...the rights to submit to God!" She said this after declaring that she was put "here" on Earth to be her husband's "slave."

No. Just...no. There's nothing Godly about that mindset. For a man to love his partner as Christ loved His church is noble indeed, but what does that mean? And who actually does that? There is no greater love than that of Christ, but I've seen a lot of conservative Christians say that a woman's place is in the house, raising the children, cooking and cleaning, and having sex whenever the man wants it, when he wants it. The thought of that breaks my heart.

If I settle down with a man, he won't be the head of the house. He's going to have to share. And he sure as anything won't be the head of the wife.

Sorry to ramble, but I feel very strongly about this.

Peace.

You sound like the Proverbs 31 woman. Any man should feel blessed to get you for a wife.

BTW - the bible never commands that wives should obey their husbands. Most wedding vows in place now do not use those words.