I don't think anything you and your wife have agreed to is objectionable, because you both agree with it and are happy with it. I wouldn't personally agree with wifely submission, but that doesn't mean that I hold it against anyone who practices it. If they are happy that way, that's fine with me.
As far as I understand, you and your wife do practice mutual submission as my husband and I.
Just so I am clear, you don't agree with wifely submission even though it has nothing to do with obeying? You do submit to your husband as he does to you, so in a sense, you do agree to it. Now I'm confused.
You did (and do) say that you are accountable and responsible for your family to God, so I don't understand why you denied that you said that you are responsible - your posts are a bit confusing, I'm sorry.
I am talking about two different kinds of responsibility. What I said is that I am not responsible for her. But I am responsible to God to give an accounting of my family. If I were responsible for her, it would entail me directing her actions. I am not called to do that. But any actions will need to be accounted for before God. So, I am to lead my family through example and service so that they naturally act responsibly. In the end, they still have free will. I can't ultimately control them (well, I can control and guide my children to a degree). But if I have done my best to be Christlike (and I haven't always, so I have a lot of explaining to do), then I can give a fair accounting to God. So, I am not responsible FOR my wife, I am responsible to God.
But I give up. You do everything you can to explain it to me, I just don't get it, sorry. That may have to do with the fact that I don't see why husbands should be accountable for their wives. I don't see Adam as the representative of all men, nor Eve as the representative for all women.
God called out Adam after the deception. It is that simple. Even though Eve was the first deceived, Adam was who God called to give an account. You can think what you want but Genesis Chapter 3 is representative of all mankind. The sins did not just impact those two individuals and the curses were not just placed on Adam and Eve.
What they did doesn't say anything about my nature ("women are easily deceived", so men are their supervisors so to speak, lest they fall for the lies of snakes again)
I agree. And I don't think that is what the narrative is saying, nor is that the reality in life (more on this below).
So I don't see why husbands should be responsible for their families including the wife, and why wives aren't accountable.
First, as I have said above, I am not saying exactly what you are saying. But I understand where you are coming from. I continue to hear this from women and it baffles me. My first response is "why not?" I mean, why do you want this job? What is so horrible about this framework? Of course, the reason is the curse. That is why women need to be commanded to submit, because they are not inclined to because of the curse. The answer to your question about why husbands are responsible
to God and why wives aren't (ultimately) accountable (for the family) before God is because God said so. Your job is to have a "voluntary attitude of giving in" to this framework. It isn't easy, is it? That is why it needs to be commanded. Are you willing to follow God's command or will you still live in the flesh and be a slave to the curse?
I'm a grown woman. I'm responsible for my own actions. I don't want my husband to suffer for the mistakes I made in my life - God should not blame him for what I did wrong.
He is only to blame if he either led you to those bad decisions or left you helpless to fall to them. If you decide to be naughty despite his best efforts to set a Christlike example, then it's on your head. Adam was not chastised for Eve's part in the whole debacle.
All of your objections still come from a false (yet pervasive) premise about what submission and headship is. I wish I was better at explaining it. Trust me, if you saw the structure as God designed it, you would have no reservations about it.
Since you brought up Genesis 3, I think some more observations about it would be beneficial.
1. It is true that Eve was deceived, but Adam was the one who blatantly disobeyed (twice, no less). This says nothing about men and women generally. It no more means women are more inclined to be deceived than it does men are more inclined to disobey.
2. Adam's first disobedient action was that he just stood by and watched. Most people don't realize this but Adam was standing there the whole time (read the text carefully and you will see this). His sin was not interceding or at least standing side by side with his wife to fight off this temptation and deceit.
3. You can not accurately understand Genesis 3, Adam's failure, and headship responsibilities without looking at the contrasting example of Christ. Christ is the second Adam, and as such, shows us what
should have happened in the garden if Adam was being the husband he should have been.
Christ does not stand passively by while his bride struggles to face a deceitful world. He actively intercedes constantly on her behalf. Had Jesus been in the garden, he would have stepped in between the serpent and Eve, not because Eve was a defensless female and not because Eve was more susceptible to deception and not because Eve can't herself be an intercessor, but because it is his God ordained job to do so. In reality, it is doubtful Adam could have resisted the deception any better than Eve. But together, they would have had a fighting chance. Adam's greater sin was that he didn't even try.
Christ also has given a full account on behalf of his family. Of course, he, committing no sin, get's an A+ from the father (note, that is true even though his bride has been very naughty). If Jesus had been in the garden, when God called out "where are you?" he would have stepped forward immediately and said "here I am father." Of course, Jesus would not have even tried to hide in the first place. He would have run to the father and confessed and repented instead of trying to hide.
Now, all of this is a little silly because had Jesus been in the garden instead of Adam, or more accurately, had Adam fulfilled his responsibilities as given by God in the first place, we would all still be running around naked, sinless, and immortal. But the point remains. Adam is an example of what the husband
should not be, Jesus is the contrasting example of what he should be.
4. Regarding women being accountable for their own actions, there is nothing in the garden narrative to suggest that they aren't. I mean, Eve didn't get off scot free. In fact, many people believe ultimately that she (and women) got the worst end of the curse. So it is not accurate to assume the husbands responsibility and accountability before God means responsibility for his wife's behavior. The husband is only responsible for his behavior, but in as much as that behavior affects the family's ability to honor and obey God, he is doubly accountable.
The "thank you sir may I please have another" model for wifely submission. I wonder if Gothard knows he has just reduced the family to the college fraternity heirarchal model. Note though that most protests to his theology of family to date have been raised by "evangelicals" (the catch phrase for fundimentalist conservative Christians.) He certainly represents a radical (and frightenly large) fringe even in fundimentalism.
