Wifely Submission

[Joykins]

The problem is you veiw submission as that of a slave and that's not what God means by it. It is equal. The husband loves the wife as himself and the wife sumbits in a good way out of love, not like giving in to every whim he has. And by you saying we shouldn't you then say scripture and God is wrong then:

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

I think it's helpful if we think of Ephesians 5:22 and following as elaboration on Ephesians 5:21. Christians are to submit to each other, but the wife's submission to the husband and the husband's submission to the wife are viewed a bit differently, with respect being the characteristic of a wife's submission and self-sacrificial love being the characteristic of a husband's submission.

That's not how God set up marriage. Do you believe what scripture has said...because it's quite blatant about it.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

It has nothing to do w/ being better than, but that's how God set it up. That doesn't mean the woman has no leadership...but the man is the head of the household. I have no issue w/ that becasue I understand what God means by that.

I think a lot of light is shed on Gen. 3:16 when we realize that it is in the nature of a punishment or curse due to sin and death, and is not the way God intended things from the beginning. Was this curse not lifted by Jesus?

 

[Texas Lynn]

I don't beleive that this is so complex that a normal person could possibly have such a hard time understanding it, unless they're just trying to get on your nerves.

I don't see what's so complicated.

It's not complex at all. Sexism never is.

The Bible says that the husband is the head of the household and, as so many people jump up and shout about, it says that the wife is to submit to the husband

It may somewhat say what you are saying, but not to the extent with any authority whatsoever today. It is merely a tool being used for oppression in this instance.

but they just whine and snitch because if they really wanted to understand (or weren't just trying to **** people off) they'd read about what the Bible says about the husband, too.

The Bible has a lot of good things in it. The use of it to maintain a sexist social structure, however, is reprehensible. It describes in this area the customs of the bronze age tribe which wrote it. In no form are Christians or others of today bound by such at all.

 

[Texas Lynn]

How so? [Having one of the two spouses in a marriage be in charge, with the power that comes with it is harmful to most marriages, and most people.]I can hardly see how having a head of the household is harmful to a marriage, especially if we're talking about the Biblical case.

What the heck is "Biblical case"? You cannot have a safe relationship when dominance is claimed by a supposed religious dogma. It is disgusting.

And I can see an obvious harm to marriages where there is no head of the household.

There are none except in the imaginations of sexists.

Yes, a marriage is a partnership and not a dictatorship, but roles need to be recognized and good people don't abuse "powers" of marriage. Just because someone is the head of the household doesn't mean that they're going to beat their wife.

It doesn't have to be physical. Every woman needs to be warned away from a man who believes so because if he isn't a danger to her physically he is a considerable danger to her spirit.

 

[kopilo]

Who can express any articulate disagreement with this quote at all? "Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove they are worthy of woman's attention." (Camille Paglia)

Simple, it goes both ways.

For my girlfriend to keep me, she has had to accept my quirks, grow out of her sheltered life and become more independant.

How far would you go for Jesus?

 

[katautumn]

Wow! I had no idea this thread would get so many responses LOL I'm kinda sad though that the four people who voted that women should obey under any circumstances didn't put their two cents in. It would be interesting to see just what they meant.

Anyway, the concept of submission is not a bad one, in theory; however, in practice it isn't such a healthy situation. Some women really feel they aren't "worthy" enough to make the decisions. Women who grow up in home where the father and husband is the "king of his castle" have lived within a family model that portrays women as emotionally unstable and completely unable to make any of her own decisions. For women like this, it is comforting and easier to marry a man who wants a submissive wife. I've heard Christian authors and speakers say that it is "dangerous" for women to live away from home before marriage because it teaches them selfishness and self-sufficiency that makes it difficult for her to be a submissive wife. This perpetuates the mindset that women are too stupid and irrational to do anything out from under the thumb of a dominant male (her father and then her husband). Some books are adamant about women remaining at home with their parents until marriage, so that she cannot become somehow spiritually and mentally tainted by living a self-sufficient life. It would appear to me that this sort of progression of life (straight from marriage to parents) keeps women ignorant to their potential and rooted in fear of making decisions independently. So, I would guess from a Christian marriage standpoint, it would be ideal to keep women living in a respectful fear of the head of household going straight from her father to her husband.

The problem when this plays out is that there are many instances in which women are not allowed to be themselves and really grow in their unique areas of potential. Here are some examples:

1. A woman wants to work outside of the home. She finds she is gifted in a certain area. She speaks with her husband about it and, as head of household and spiritual leader, he says he does not feel it is God's will for her to work outside of them home, nor is it financially necessary for her to do so. As a submissive wife, she submits to her husband's final decision in the matter and suppresses her potential.

2. In many Christian marriages, it is not required that a husband discuss the finances with his wife, but it is required for the woman to discuss the finances with her husband. The husband may choose to inform his wife of his expenditures and she is to consider this a privilege when he does this, but she is to ask permission beforehand to spend any money and disclose any spending to her husband.

3. I have heard it say that quiet submission, in its most Biblical sense of the word, is about never making your husband feel belittled. I have read books that say men are incredibly sensitive to correction and as a godly wife, it is your husband who is to administer correction, not the other way around. This has been used as an argument to defend such practices as never interfering in your husband's way of doing things or even sitting back and remaining silent even when you know he is doing something the wrong way. Their reasoning is that it's better for a man to realize he's doing something wrong on his own, rather than to be humiliated by having a woman point it out.

4. The verses pertaining to wifely submission, in conjunction with the verse about not depriving your spouse, have been used as a way for men to take advantage of their wives sexually. In fact, it's sad when you ask some Christians about their thoughts on marital rape and you get the response that marital rape is some sort of feminist myth, that a wife gives her body to her husband to use at his discretion on her wedding day. This gives the husband unlimited access to his wife and if she denies him, she is not being a godly, submissive wife.

5. It limits the wife's ability to discern for herself in spiritual matters. If the husband is to be the spiritual boss in the marriage, what happens when the wife feels God is calling her to a different church, but the husband says he feels God is calling them to stay at the church they already attend? Does the wife remain in a church where she is not being spiritually fed in order to be submissive to her husband in all spiritual matters?

 

[Athene]

Wow, you guys really are twisted.

Am I the spiritual leader of my household? Yes I am. Does this mean I force my wife to believe what I want her to? Nope, it does not. Same for any others who think that just because a man happens to be in charge of a household these days, does not mean the women is secondary or she isn't important.

No wonder you reject Christianity; you refuse to understand it.

Well first off I am a christian , and I would still like you to clarify what you mean by spiritual leader. To some people it means that the husband dictates everything to his wife - she's not allowed to have a dissenting opinion - her husband chooses the interpretation of the bible she is to believe. But to others and this is the interpretation I favour - the man is too build his wife up, he's to be the source of life for her faith - it is his responsibility to ensure that his wife meets her full potential.

And you yourself put your wife in a secondary position by stating that you are the boss and your wife stands behind you. What else can I infer from this other then you consider your wife to be secondary.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Simple, it goes both ways.

For my girlfriend to keep me, she has had to accept my quirks, grow out of her sheltered life and become more independant.

How far would you go for Jesus?

I don't think your "simple" answer addresses the issue.

 

[kopilo]

You're quote is at most two sentances long and states that men do all sort of stuff to attain a female's attention.

So why do corporate women wear short skirts, stockings, high heals, makeup, lipstick and perfume? (Or even in some cases get botox during lunch.)

[sarcasim] Not because they are trying to attract any attention from males, never. [/sarcasim]

Do you really require me to say? If females are dominate because males have "to do all sorts of stuff to attain their attention"; then when females have to "do all sorts of stuff to attain a males attention" (by the same token) males are the dominate gender.

Hence no one gender can be considered the dominate sex based on what they have to do in order to attain the attention of the other gender.

"No one will win battle of the sexes, there is too much fraternizing with the enemy" - Henry A Kissinger.

 

[Texas Lynn]

You're quote is at most two sentances long and states that men do all sort of stuff to attain a female's attention.

So why do corporate women wear short skirts, stockings, high heals, makeup, lipstick and perfume? (Or even in some cases get botox during lunch.)

[sarcasim] Not because they are trying to attract any attention from males, never. [/sarcasim]

Do you really require me to say? If females are dominate because males have "to do all sorts of stuff to attain their attention"; then when females have to "do all sorts of stuff to attain a males attention" (by the same token) males are the dominate gender.

Whatever. Your argumentitiveness over the point is somewhat strange. BTW, many of those women are entirely heterosexual but do what they do to impress other women primarily.

The quote was posted in response to the absurd notion men are God-created to dominate. If that were so it'd be an indication of the evilness of god. When one gender endures childbirth but the other whines about minor indignities, the notion the latter is over the former is absurd.

 

[christalee4]

Wow! I had no idea this thread would get so many responses LOL I'm kinda sad though that the four people who voted that women should obey under any circumstances didn't put their two cents in. It would be interesting to see just what they meant.

Anyway, the concept of submission is not a bad one, in theory; however, in practice it isn't such a healthy situation. Some women really feel they aren't "worthy" enough to make the decisions. Women who grow up in home where the father and husband is the "king of his castle" have lived within a family model that portrays women as emotionally unstable and completely unable to make any of her own decisions. For women like this, it is comforting and easier to marry a man who wants a submissive wife. I've heard Christian authors and speakers say that it is "dangerous" for women to live away from home before marriage because it teaches them selfishness and self-sufficiency that makes it difficult for her to be a submissive wife. This perpetuates the mindset that women are too stupid and irrational to do anything out from under the thumb of a dominant male (her father and then her husband). Some books are adamant about women remaining at home with their parents until marriage, so that she cannot become somehow spiritually and mentally tainted by living a self-sufficient life. It would appear to me that this sort of progression of life (straight from marriage to parents) keeps women ignorant to their potential and rooted in fear of making decisions independently. So, I would guess from a Christian marriage standpoint, it would be ideal to keep women living in a respectful fear of the head of household going straight from her father to her husband.

The problem when this plays out is that there are many instances in which women are not allowed to be themselves and really grow in their unique areas of potential. Here are some examples:

1. A woman wants to work outside of the home. She finds she is gifted in a certain area. She speaks with her husband about it and, as head of household and spiritual leader, he says he does not feel it is God's will for her to work outside of them home, nor is it financially necessary for her to do so. As a submissive wife, she submits to her husband's final decision in the matter and suppresses her potential.

2. In many Christian marriages, it is not required that a husband discuss the finances with his wife, but it is required for the woman to discuss the finances with her husband. The husband may choose to inform his wife of his expenditures and she is to consider this a privilege when he does this, but she is to ask permission beforehand to spend any money and disclose any spending to her husband.

3. I have heard it say that quiet submission, in its most Biblical sense of the word, is about never making your husband feel belittled. I have read books that say men are incredibly sensitive to correction and as a godly wife, it is your husband who is to administer correction, not the other way around. This has been used as an argument to defend such practices as never interfering in your husband's way of doing things or even sitting back and remaining silent even when you know he is doing something the wrong way. Their reasoning is that it's better for a man to realize he's doing something wrong on his own, rather than to be humiliated by having a woman point it out.

4. The verses pertaining to wifely submission, in conjunction with the verse about not depriving your spouse, have been used as a way for men to take advantage of their wives sexually. In fact, it's sad when you ask some Christians about their thoughts on marital rape and you get the response that marital rape is some sort of feminist myth, that a wife gives her body to her husband to use at his discretion on her wedding day. This gives the husband unlimited access to his wife and if she denies him, she is not being a godly, submissive wife.

5. It limits the wife's ability to discern for herself in spiritual matters. If the husband is to be the spiritual boss in the marriage, what happens when the wife feels God is calling her to a different church, but the husband says he feels God is calling them to stay at the church they already attend? Does the wife remain in a church where she is not being spiritually fed in order to be submissive to her husband in all spiritual matters?

All good questions for considerations in marriage situations in which "wifely submission" is practiced.

Another poster also defended the idea of wifely submission in which he stated that ideally the "boss"/husband would be a good person who would be kind, considerate and responsible. Of course, the ideal is always desired. In real life, however, it's a lot more complicated. Every Christian interprets Scripture differently. Some may do so more literally than others, or place emphasis on OT over NT. Other scriptural mentions of women's roles, such as God's judgement on Eve, admonitions for women to be silent and not to teach men, laws pertaining to adultery, as well as Biblical tales extolling bride rape, and women as property, have been used over the centuries to sanction male rule over women's bodies, lives, and destinies, both in marriage and in society in general.

Whereas a strict hierarchical structure may work for some in Christian marriages - God-husband-wife/children-pets - it should not encouraged as the ideal, because not a single set of rules is ideal for everyone. The provision that husband is boss, and the wife and children follow his rules has more opportunity for spiritual, mental and physical abuse, especially in the light of a husband or father who has so little confidence in himself that he has to prop himself up as a "decider-in-chief", rather than as a loving partner or nurturer of his family.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

It's not complex at all. Sexism never is.

Oh I love this ploy! Over half of the women in America are suddenly sexists who hate women, just like when affirmitive action is brought up people pull the race card and suddenly half of minorities in America are racist and hate their own people! I love it when this happens! <--- here's your sign? just kidding.

And please, when you quote me actually quote me

It may somewhat say what you are saying, but not to the extent with any authority whatsoever today. It is merely a tool being used for oppression in this instance.

Wrong again! Perhaps I know because I live in a household, and I know of other households... who work perfectly under this model!

The Bible has a lot of good things in it. The use of it to maintain a sexist social structure, however, is reprehensible. It describes in this area the customs of the bronze age tribe which wrote it. In no form are Christians or others of today bound by such at all.

Yes, I can see the new book coming out now... The Teachings of Jesus: The Customs of the Bronze Age

What the heck is "Biblical case"? You cannot have a safe relationship when dominance is claimed by a supposed religious dogma. It is disgusting.

Explain to me such an instance where it is not safe, but first recognize that no one is pushing dominance forth, as you are. The Bible says that the wife is to submit to her husband, ex. "do not deprive your spouse of sexual fulfillment" (fyi, the wife is a spouse, too, and they do get sexual fulfillment ). As far as a safe relationship, you have failed to give any examples (please do), and I might suggest reading what the Bible says to men. Directly after it says "women, submit to your husbands" it says "husbands, be kind and gentle with your wives, do not be cruel." unsafe?

I can see it now... "husbands, gently beat your wives in kindness and without cruelty."

There are none except in the imaginations of sexists.

Again, you pull the sexism card, which I assume means you have no grounds on which to argue, as you just said that half of women are sexist against women.

It doesn't have to be physical. Every woman needs to be warned away from a man who believes so because if he isn't a danger to her physically he is a considerable danger to her spirit.

I have to ask if you can pull anything besides the sexist card, because even then your position is weak. You haven't provided an example, and you DEFINITELY can't prove that that is an absolute.

I'll say this to you now: if you are just going to cast aside one Biblical teaching (this one coming from Jesus), then you cannot properly not cast aside all others, unless you think yourself wiser than God.

Well first off I am a christian , and I would still like you to clarify what you mean by spiritual leader. To some people it means that the husband dictates everything to his wife - she's not allowed to have a dissenting opinion - her husband chooses the interpretation of the bible she is to believe. But to others and this is the interpretation I favour - the man is too build his wife up, he's to be the source of life for her faith - it is his responsibility to ensure that his wife meets her full potential.

And you yourself put your wife in a secondary position by stating that you are the boss and your wife stands behind you. What else can I infer from this other then you consider your wife to be secondary.

I think you have the same basic idea that he has, and the same basic idea that I have. I feel that it goes a little further, but doesn't verge off of the same basic guidelines - it's never that the woman doesn't have an opinion, and it's not the case that "yea you have an opinion - it just doesn't matter."

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

You're quote is at most two sentances long and states that men do all sort of stuff to attain a female's attention.

So why do corporate women wear short skirts, stockings, high heals, makeup, lipstick and perfume? (Or even in some cases get botox during lunch.)

[sarcasim] Not because they are trying to attract any attention from males, never. [/sarcasim]

Do you really require me to say? If females are dominate because males have "to do all sorts of stuff to attain their attention"; then when females have to "do all sorts of stuff to attain a males attention" (by the same token) males are the dominate gender.

Hence no one gender can be considered the dominate sex based on what they have to do in order to attain the attention of the other gender.

"No one will win battle of the sexes, there is too much fraternizing with the enemy" - Henry A Kissinger.

It actually seems to me that women do more... Whether it's purely about attaining the opposite sex's attention is up to you to decide, but I live in a household with 5 males (including myself) and 4 females, so I see 4 other guys and 4 other girls and how they interact. The girls spend ALOT more time worrying about how they look - they spend more time in the shower, alot of time with makeup, they freak out over one tiny, barely noticeable zit and (at times) don't want to go out because of it - girls seem to care alot more about making an apperance than guys do, from what I've seen. I hardly think that makes guys dominant or shows that they are. It goes both ways.

 

[Argent]

Barefoot, pregnant and sitting in the back row, I tell you, the back row!!!!!

 

[Saeph]

How so? I can hardly see how having a head of the household is harmful to a marriage, especially if we're talking about the Biblical case.

Who says that a family can't work withouth a "leader/head"? Who says that if there's a "head of the household" it should be always the husband/a male?

And I can see an obvious harm to marriages where there is no head of the household. Yes, a marriage is a partnership and not a dictatorship, but roles need to be recognized and good people don't abuse "powers" of marriage. Just because someone is the head of the household doesn't mean that they're going to beat their wife.

But there are marriages which don't need any leader or head. They share their own specific roles in the household, too, but nobody is the "leader".

Also there are a few risks in the marriage model you describe, as christalee4 noticed. Not many men have the ability to think for two (or more) people at the same time. I'm not saying that women do so, and that's why I think that the best family model is, when both (husband and wife/father and mother) are sharing their roles, and nobody is a "leader". That may have been needed in times when we lived in caves...

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Whatever. Your argumentitiveness over the point is somewhat strange. BTW, many of those women are entirely heterosexual but do what they do to impress other women primarily.

Ah, so everything that men do is to impress women and now MOST of the things that women do are to impress women. Clearly, women are the greater of the two sexes.

 

[Saeph]

Ah, so everything that men do is to impress women and now MOST of the things that women do are to impress women. Clearly, women are the greater of the two sexes.

When are you coming off your "who's-the-better-gender"-trip?!

Noone is the greater, they're to complement one another. That's why we have two and not one sex.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Who says that a family can't work withouth a "leader/head"? Who says that if there's a "head of the household" it should be always the husband/a male?

I didn't say that it can't, but a family doesn't function as well without a head of the household. I stress a head of the household because I do not mean a leader.

And who says? The Bible, where have you been.

But there are marriages which don't need any leader or head. They share their own specific roles in the household, too, but nobody is the "leader".

A head of the household, not a leader. There is a difference.

And hey, there are marriages that fall apart... Has the divorce rate not spiked?

Also there are a few risks in the marriage model you describe, as christalee4 noticed. Not many man have the ability to think for two (or more) people at the same time. I'm not saying that women do so, and that's why I think that the best family model is, when both (husband and wife/father and mother) are sharing their roles, and nobody is a "leader". That may have been needed in times when we lived in caves...

The difference is that you beleive that few men would fill the role well (I would say that some sort of change is in order), and she beleives that no man would/could.

... Do Christians read the Bible anymore? I might just be a little bit more traditional, but I pull my religious standing from the Bible and not from myself.




We're not on the same level.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

When are you coming off your "who's-the-better-gender"-trip?!

Noone is the greater, they're to complement one another. That's why we have two and not one sex.

Please, check back on what I was quoting.

Who can express any articulate disagreement with this quote at all? "Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove they are worthy of woman's attention." (Camille Paglia)

And she calls me sexist.

 

[Saeph]

And who says? The Bible, where have you been.

Please post the verses you're talking about. I don't think we can discuss such an issue properly when we're always saying "it's in the Bible" but haven't got the verses.

A head of the household, not a leader. There is a difference.

Where do you see the difference between a "head" and a "leader"?

And hey, there are marriages that fall apart... Has the divorce rate not spiked?

You're right, it has. But the reason beyond this isn't because many people have different views on their family roles nowadays. It is because people are splitting when the smallest problems occure. Don't mix this up.

... Do Christians read the Bible anymore? I might just be a little bit more traditional, but I pull my religious standing from the Bible and not from myself.

And this is to your credit.

We're not on the same level.

You think you've found that out after two posts?

Don't think I'm kind of "fleeing" but it may be possible that I'm not able to reply until tomorrow.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It would be funny if it made sense.

And please, when you quote me actually quote me

Yesterday the quote button on your posts was missing.

I live in a household, and I know of other households... who work perfectly under this model!

Man and horse?

Yes, I can see the new book coming out now... The Teachings of Jesus: The Customs of the Bronze Age

Actually Jesus taught to move beyond conventional wisdom.

Explain to me such an instance where it is not safe, but first recognize that no one is pushing dominance forth, as you are.

Sorry-any idea the husband is God-ordained to be the boss in the family is advocating dominance.

The Bible says that the wife is to submit to her husband, ex. "do not deprive your spouse of sexual fulfillment" (fyi, the wife is a spouse, too, and they do get sexual fulfillment ).

Careful that smylie may violate some CF protocol used in that context.

As far as a safe relationship, you have failed to give any examples (please do), and I might suggest reading what the Bible says to men. Directly after it says "women, submit to your husbands" it says "husbands, be kind and gentle with your wives, do not be cruel." unsafe?

Traditionalistic views of gender roles are considered a risk factor in the spouse abuse assessment matrix, unlike egalitarian roles.

I can see it now... "husbands, gently beat your wives in kindness and without cruelty."

The origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" is don't beat your wife with a stick of larger circumference than your thumb.

Again, you pull the sexism card, which I assume means you have no grounds on which to argue, as you just said that half of women are sexist against women.

That doesn't make any sense. Sexism exists. It is a substantial argument to identify it.

I have to ask if you can pull anything besides the sexist card, because even then your position is weak. You haven't provided an example, and you DEFINITELY can't prove that that is an absolute.

Nothing is absolute.

I'll say this to you now: if you are just going to cast aside one Biblical teaching (this one coming from Jesus), then you cannot properly not cast aside all others, unless you think yourself wiser than God.

Jesus never advocated sexism. He broke gender barriers one after another-the Martha-Mary stuff, the woman who washed his feet with her tears, the Samaritan woman, etc. etc.

I think you have the same basic idea that he has, and the same basic idea that I have. I feel that it goes a little further, but doesn't verge off of the same basic guidelines - it's never that the woman doesn't have an opinion, and it's not the case that "yea you have an opinion - it just doesn't matter."

It's nice when couples cooperate and work toward mutuality; but a man who is convinced he is somehow god-ordained to be boss in the family is one others should try to prevent a woman from marrying because he is bad news.