The Christian Way Forums / The Christian Way Forums / Social Issues Relevant to CS and Christianity in General / Should Women submit to their husband? / Latest Posts

RE: Should Women submit to their husband?

joanne — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:58:57 GMT

Women should be submissive with regards to their husbands. It's part of a wife's obligation and for me it's no big deal.

RE: Should Women submit to their husband?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:41:20 GMT

Looking back at some my earlier comments on this topic, I noted the imperfection of analogies. A couple more, however, occurred to me regarding the renewed interest in wives submitting to husbands.

You might also think of a three-legged race. If both partners attempt to go their own way without regard for the other, winning or even completing the race is unlikely. I also think of my two hands trying to applaud. Being right-handed, I generally hold my left hand stable and move my right towards my left. Both hands (partners) are required to produce sound, but the labor is done by my dominant hand.

Context is important. I think that Ephesians 5:22 (to ,) is usually considered the offensive passage. It is immediately preceded, however, by Ephesians 5:20-21:

[i]...giv(e) thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [u]submitting to one another[/u] out of reverence for Christ.[/i]

Wives are specifically commanded to submit to their husbands and husbands are specifically commanded to love (respect) their wives. Perhaps God knew what each of us would have difficulty fulfilling?

Considering the entire context of Ephesians 5, I don't see how God could have in mind me dominating my wife in a manner she should resist. We cannot hate our own flesh. Husbands and wives are to be as one.

To cherry pick an offensive passage and not consider its context results in an inaccurate understanding of God's word. That is true whether we're talking about marital relationships or our relationship with God Himself. Those who reject God's word should not be offended by what they consider fiction or error. The rest of us need to understand the whole word of God and not limit ourselves just to the parts we think we understand.

Do Go Be Man
<><

kms — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:40:03 GMT

So then, should a man submit to their wife?

If the bible's definition of the word submit is different from the Webster's definition and modern day contextualization, how would you define the word?

Would it be fair to say that you think at times a wife should submit to her husband, and at other times a husband should submit to his wife?

Are there any parts of gods word, as illustrated in the bible that do not line up with your beliefs or moral code? I'm sure you do not interpret everything literally, do you? If not, when do you decide to be subjective, or assign symbolic meaning?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:51:47 GMT

kms,

should a man submit to their wife?

A smart husband listens to his wife. God provided her as a helpmate. They should together submit to God and seek His will.

We're not talking about the "It's good to be the King!" kind of submission. That would be abusive and not at all what God intended. The head of home has responsibilities. Using his headship for personal comfort and pleasure would be wrong. Headship and submission are about ensuring that the home is well-managed for the good of all.

This whole submission thing has taken on too many negative connotations not intended by the original texts. People who completely support and understand the concepts of employees submitting to the head of a company or soldiers submitting to the leadership of a military officer go ballastic with the concept that a home should have a head.

Another analogy could be a lifeguard at a pool. Like the lifeguard, the husband serves to ensure the safety and well-being of the family. Like the swimmers, the family cooperates and follows the rules intended to help them have fun and remain safe. The rules are not arbitrary. At the pool, they have been established within procedures provided by a national agency such as the Red Cross or YMCA based on years of practical experience. The lifeguard is not free to alter the rules to his personal gain. The husband abides by God's law and must practice his headship within God's intent. Stepping outside of God's headship invalidates the husband's headship. Lifeguards who stop people from running on the pool deck, conduct periodic pool checks, and otherwise lead to ensure everyone's safety model headship. Lifeguards who ignore the pool to talk to friends and allow any kind of behaviour to go on, do not exercise headship.

Do Go Be Man
<><

kms — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:01:57 GMT

should a man submit to their wife?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:34:01 GMT

Anonymous Tuesday, July 04, 2006 10:27 AM,

...discrimination of wages between the men and women...doing the same jobs.

As strongly as I believe in the Biblical teachings regarding women's roles in home and church, I also firmly support equal pay for equal work in the work place. The Bible has a lot to say about fairness and proper conduct regarding wages. I was once nearly fired from a job when I asked HR why my more experienced, female coworker made a substantially lower wage than me. The answer turned out to be that I was a CSist and she wasn't (the company was owned by CSists).

Do Go Be Man
<><

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:27:06 GMT

C-Span showed a Q/A meeting of a bunch of Progressive Party habitues talking about, what else? Equality and how to take over the Senate and House from the Republicans. One woman was an expert on the Wal-Mart case involving discrimination of wages between the men and women...doing the same jobs. She gave the example of testimony of one woman who asked her supervisor why she was getting a less hourly wage than her male counterparts and the supervisor said, "God made Adam first." Cute.

Also Curious

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:57:42 GMT

My father performed with Amy Semple McPherson during his performing years as an 'inspirational speaker' with the Chautauqua Circuit at the beginning of the last century through the 1920's. He said she was the most charismatic person who ever lived and learned much from her during those years. May be why he got into CS and learned to admire and trust the female gender.

Also Curious

Do_Go_Be_Man — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:03:47 GMT

You may find this Newsweek article interesting - God's Girls. For one thing, it mentions MBE as one of only two American women prior to Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to reach "the pinnacle of a religion's organizational chart".

Do Go Be Man
<><

Linda — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:38:37 GMT

The difference is that as I interpret, I seek to understand how to apply God's word to my circumstances. Others tend to seek how to apply their circumstances to God's word.

You and I think alike, Do Go.

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:18:02 GMT

Dear Christian Man Living in Todays World,

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we all interpret the Bible and cannot read it without putting our own "interpretation" on it. Makes perfect sense to me!

Avis

Do_Go_Be_Man — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:28:20 GMT

Christian man living in today's world,

Progressive Christians admit that they interpret the bible, and Conservative Christians do not admit it, but in fact interpret just as much.

I admit I interpret as do my peers. The difference is that as I interpret, I seek to understand how to apply God's word to my circumstances. Others tend to seek how to apply their circumstances to God's word.

As in everything else I do, I am imperfect. I accept, however, that God knew what He was doing when He provided His word and do not believe He needs editorial assistance from me.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:12:24 GMT

Also Curious,

Yes, I am a born & raised ex- CS. As far as my attitude about women that you keep referring to; I think it is evident how I feel about equality, and that I do not expect women to submit to their husbands. The comment you refer to was in jest, and only a fantasy. My wife is the leader of our household as my professional career won't allow me to. She also has a better ability than I. I feel that I am true to the teachings of the bible as I see it. I think you also agree with me that women should not have to submit to their husbands from one of your last posts.

Linda,

I read recently in a book, Progressive Christians admit that they interpret the bible, and Conservative Christians do not admit it, but in fact interpret just as much.

I think that your statement - While I agree that some things written in the Bible clearly address cultural issues of that day, other things were meant for all time. indicates that you do in fact interpret. You admit that you decide what is meant for all time, and what is a cultural issue of that day.

We just disagree on our interpretations of women submitting in marriage. You state - Based on how it is presented, I think that God's plan for marriage is one of those "for all time" plans. That is your interpretation. I believe that women submitting to their husbands is a cultural trend of that day, and not at all current with today's norms. In fact you admit that in every other part of life - workplace, etc. you fully support women taking the lead. But this was not accepted in Jesus' day either. So as culture has changed over the centuries, and women are now accepted as leaders, you accept them in every leadership role except in the household. I would say you are interpreting.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But whether you admit it or not, you are interpreting just as much as I am. We just interpret differently.

Christian man living in today's world

Linda — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:28:53 GMT

do you go further, and feel that all women should submit?

I think that God's desire is for Christian marriages to be an illustration of the relationship between Christ and his church. That illustration is clearly laid out in Epbesians 5:22-33 as I pointed out earlier in this thread. After giving instructions to wives and husbands, this passage clearly uses the marriage analogy to describe the relationship between Christ and his church:

"'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church." (v. 31-32)

From a secular standpoint, I think that some women are "more qualified" and "more willing" to lead the family than are their husbands. Like a number of other issues that don't involve core doctrine, I personally don't care whether husbands or wives run their individual families. So I am not having this discussion in order to tell you what I personally think.

My point is that the Bible has laid down a pattern for marriage and that, since that pattern is carefully compared to the relationship between Christ and his church, it is an enduring pattern that transcends cultural trends. God's pattern is always better, whether or not we choose to follow it.

A lot of people today feel that the Bible is flawed and should, therefore, be "interpreted" it to satisfy what seems to make sense at the moment. Using this approach, people are gutting much of what is sacred and precious about the Bible.

While I agree that some things written in the Bible clearly address cultural issues of that day, other things were meant for all time. Based on how it is presented, I think that God's plan for marriage is one of those "for all time" plans.

One more point -- The instructions regarding marriage were given to believers, so I think that they apply to believers rather than unbelievers. This makes sense in light of the analogy of Christ and his church. Christ does not have the intimate relationship with nonbelievers that he has with believers. And a nonbelieving man cannot understand the directive to "love your wives, just as Christ loved the church" when he doesn't understand how Christ loved the church.

So the bottom line is: I personally don't care who leads individual families, but I do care what the Bible says. I believe that the Bible is trustworthy and relevant, so I am not willing to "interpret it away" to meet my personal preferences.

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:38:23 GMT

Christian man:

I cannot express strongly enough how worried I am about your view of my credibility. This forum is mainly for ex-Christian Scientists but, as Linda has written here many times. all are welcome. I am an ex-Christian Scientist and have read this board for a very long time and am interested in how differently Christians view their religion and the Christiran Bible. (1) I wanted to express my gratitude for Linda's break down of your remarks and how she 'defends' this particular part of the Scriptures, and (2) Your comment "...admitting as a man...blah, blah..." needed particular emphasis to expose your attitude about women and how laughable it is that you've set yourself up to deliver us from male domination. BTW, are you an ex-Christian Scientist? Or know anything about this religion (or cult as many call it)?

Also Curious

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:20:26 GMT

Linda,

I understand your personal choice as you said: Biblical submission is not a question of capability. It's a choice .
I respect that. I respect any man or woman who submits to their spouse and their leadership. I understand it is a personal choice for you, but do you go further, and feel that all women should submit? I think that is where you and I differ. I believe that there are many reasons why the woman should be the leader of the household, and the choice should be left up to the couple.

Some reasons for the woman to lead are: first, one partner will simply always make a better leader than the other, and it may be the woman; the man may be gone most of the time, and the woman naturally should lead the household; the woman may be subject to abuse from her husband, and should not submit; etc.

It really boils down to a fundamental difference between us I would guess. I believe in freedom and choice, and you probably believe that your rules as you see them should apply to everyone. If I am wrong, and it is only your personal choice to submit, and you do not believe that all women should submit, please correct me. As you indicated, there are exceptions, but I take it that you generally believe that women submitting to their husbands is their duty, and not their choice. I differ, and feel that who leads, and who submits is up to the couple only, and should not be dictated.

Also Curious,

I don't know whether it's me, but I find it hard following you. Most of your posts seem inflammatory, and seem to be critical of my posts rather than stating your position. I really can't tell your position. I was sure that you agreed that women should submit to the husbands, until you said in your last post:

This does not mean that I agree with the bible's 'take' on any of this.

If you are trying to be critical, rather than offer constructive opinions, you lose your credibility.

Christian man living in today's world

Linda — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:09:35 GMT

Christian man living in today's world,

Of course women can be leaders at work. We have been discussing what the Bible says about marriage -- NOT business or any other relationship. Women are just as capable of leading as men. WHAT have I said that makes you assume that I would think that women are not capable of being leaders?

If you are submissive, that is fine. No criticism from me.

You make me sound like a little field mouse who likes being told what to do. Let me assure you that this is NOT the case. Choosing to submit to someone under a certain circumstance does not mean that a person is submissive by nature or in all circumstances. You are extrapolating here -- a common mistake among people who assume that biblical submission in marriage means submission to men in all walks of life.

The Bible gives instructions to men for the marriage relationship just as it gives instructions for women. A strong biblical marriage requires that both partners follow the instructions in order for them to reap the blessings. I believe that God will bless each partner as he/she holds up his/her end of the bargain. But I don't think that a woman should submit to tyrany, abuse, neglect, etc.

Regarding whether a woman "is capable" of leading a household -- of course she is. Biblical submission is not a question of capability. It's a choice -- an act of the will. That is why instructions are given to do it -- it doesn't necessarily come naturally. If women were, by nature, dumb and easily controlled, they wouldn't have to be told that God intends their husbands to be leaders in the household. And -- dare I say it -- if leading unselfishly came naturally to men, they wouldn't have to be told to lead unselfishly.

I just can't believe that I am a male, supporting women's rights to lead, and not submit to men, and I have females disagreeing with me. You overestimate your role here. We're not talking about a leadership and submission issues between men and women in general -- we are discusing one specific area where the Bible gives specific instructions.

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:23:08 GMT

Your 'gagging' statement stands on its own...and is a repulsive attitude by anyone's standards. That isn't difficult to understand and I'll try to avoid any comments about 'deaf' ears and 'selective' listening. I was agreeing with Linda's interpretation of the bible (and she doesn't need me to defend her so let's end it here), but is not necessarily anything I live by. This does not mean that I agree with the bible's 'take' on any of this. It's christians like yourself who cherry pick verses from the bible and still expect the rest of us to believe that you will be 'saved' while living within your own rules. Your defensive moves toward women fall on my deaf years, by the way.

Also Curious

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:40:19 GMT

Also Curious,

Gagging is your term, not mine. I was referring to your dislike of men "liking" the idea of women submitting to men. As you said - "gag" to that idea. But then you go on to apparently agree with the concept of women submitting to men. It seems that you struggle with the bible's instruction on on hand, and your own distaste for submitting to men on the other.

I actually don't understand what you mean with Your gagging statement deserves a response from all the various forms of beliefs, a rebuff from every believer or disbeliever. It's cute you're trying to neutralize something that is obviously part of your make up, Christian or not. Maybe you can explain that better.

Linda,

You are right that I don't know you and your husband. If you are submissive, that is fine. No criticism from me. Someone must take the lead in the household, and I would not criticize you for that. But I believe that a woman can take the lead also, and many do. From your statements, you believe that a woman should not lead the household. I do not know if you believe that a woman is not capable of being the head of the household. I will let you answer that. But many women are more capable than their husbands of being the head of the household. And if I understand you correctly, you would still say that they should submit to their husband, and their husband should still be the head of the household even if they are less capable. Am I correct in that assumption?

How far do you go with the concept of women submitting to men? In business too? Can women be leaders at work?

I just can't believe that I am a male, supporting women's rights to lead, and not submit to men, and I have females disagreeing with me.

Christian man living in today's world

Linda — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:24:27 GMT

Christian man living in today's world,

I am a leader by nature and am the type to naturally rise to leadership positions when I choose to. Submission is a choice, just as Jesus Christ chose to submit to the Father in order to accomplish his task on Earth. I lead in many areas in my home, but I also recognize my husband as the head of our household. There are certain decisions that ultimately fall to him. I can't expect you to understand the relationship since you don't know my husband and me and since you don't seem to agree with the husband wife relationship described in the Bible. I think it's one of those "you either get it or you don't" situations. No disrespect intended -- just a description of why you see biblical submission as demeaning and I do not.

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:16:07 GMT

Linda responded to your statement within the context of her understanding of the bible. Your gagging statement deserves a response from all the various forms of beliefs, a rebuff from every believer or disbeliever. It's cute you're trying to neutralize something that is obviously part of your make up, Christian or not.

"Stand up for yourselves, ladies"? Oh, yeah, like we need advice from you.

Also Curious

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:52:54 GMT

Linda & Also Curious,

I am glad that you don't like my statement "I like the idea of women submitting to me", because as much as I might like the idea of that, I know that it is wrong. I too gag at that phrase. Men and women were created equal, and women should not submit to her husbands. I notice the "gag" in Also Curious' response, and find it curious that she would gag and then go on to agree with Linda, and agree for women to submit to men.

I agree that men need to have "sacrificial, selfless, and God directed leadership", but women need to have that also. Many do not because they deny themselves. Maybe you both are submissive women, but I know many women who could take that role as capably as a man. I am not criticizing you for being submissive, but do not deny other women their right to lead and choose not to submit to men. Many people are natural leaders in this world, and men don't have the corner on the market. Please stand up for yourselves ladies.

Christian man living in today's world

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:45:08 GMT

"I have to admit that as a man I like the idea of women submitting to me." (gag)

Thanks, Linda, for your reply to this 'Christian man living in today's world.' I've been trying to think just how to respond to that statement all morning and you 'said' it perfectly.

Also Curious

Linda — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:08:50 GMT

If you have carefully read my posts throughout this thread, it should be clear that I consider the issue to be more than a mere "cultural norm." Dress style DOES reflect cultural norms and is, therefore, changeable. The relationship between Christ and his church, and the parallel drawn between that relationship and husband-wife relationships seems, to me, to transcend fashion trends.

If you make the statement, "I have to admit that as a man I like the idea of women submitting to me," I don't think you understand man's biblical role in the process -- his sacrificial, selfless, and God directed leadership. That puts more pressure on the man than it does on the woman. It's not the power trip you make it out to be.

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:55:26 GMT

Interesting topic. I also find it curious that many women hold the position that "Women should submit to their husbands".

I realize that the bible says so, but times have changed a lot since then. For those who say that we should follow everything exactly as the bible says.... do you also dress as they did in those days? Cultural norms change, and as I have to admit that as a man I like the idea of women submitting to me, I realize that that is not correct in today's times. Many men will try to convince women that this is still applicable today, but they are doing so from selfish ambitions.

Christian man living in today's world

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:17:10 GMT

Sorry to disappoint, but about all I had in mind was ...

Okay, so there is more. I'm just not real comfortable bringing it up. I could point to all kinds of Bible verses to support and explain this and other politically incorrect points of view. That would, however, probably accomplish little.

The deeper, more important issue is whether God's word is trustworthy and relevant. CSists, many Christians, and non-Christians consider at least parts to be unworthy of trust and irrelevant. For example, many Christians consider the convenants of the Old Testament to be obsolete and hold merely historical importance.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:39:56 GMT

Also Curious,

I can't wait here all day for Christian Counselor to respond. So, why don't you give us your idea of an answer?

Sorry to disappoint, but about all I had in mind was that God knew what He was doing as it served His own purposes and that it reinforces the role of men as servant leaders and teachers.

Another way of looking at an old question occurred to me today - by what authority can God's word be declared errant and irrelevant?

As I've said on this and other issues, from a secular point of view, anyone submitting to anyone else is, at best, uncomfortable. Yet, the Bible makes clear declarations. Should our social conscience compel us to ignore the Bible on issues which conflict with other beliefs and personal preferences?

Do Go Be Man
<><

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:08:38 GMT

It seems to me this whole thread is pointless if you actually read the entire chapter in context -- as Linda pointed out. It's sort of like getting hung up on what the definition of "is" is.

Anonymous — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:24:23 GMT

Do Go Be Man:

I can't wait here all day for Christian Counselor to respond. So, why don't you give us your idea of an answer?

Thanks in advance,
Also Curious

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:27:23 GMT

Christian Counselor,

Why do you suppose Jesus' core disciples ("The 12" a.k.a. the Apostles) were all men?

Do Go Be Man
<><

Linda — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:26:41 GMT

The way to follow this biblically is to take the definition of submission as respect.

I looked up the word "submit" in my Strong's Concordance to find the Greek word from which it was translated. Here's what Strong's Concordance says the Greek word means: to obey: -- be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) into subjectin (to, under), submit self unto.

This same word (hupotasso) is used in James 4: 7 when he says "Submit yourselves, then, to God." So I don't think the word can really be translated "to respect."

With that said, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. It isn't a core doctrine vital to salvation or to defining Christianity, and Christians clearly disagree on it. I am aware that it has been used to great harm in many cases; cases, I'm sure, where the husband was acting selfishly and was NOT holding up his end of the biblical bargain. It is clearly wrong for the husband to demand submission from his wife if he is not willing to lead as the Bible directs him to -- sacrificially and with his wife's best interest always in mind. I am not saying that a wife should submit to abuse.

My point in defending the submission issue is that the Bible paints marriage as a picture of Christ and His church. That's a key reason why marriage should be protected and treated seriously. I believe that, when both the husband and wife follow the biblical guidelines, the marriage will be strong and healthy.

So my point is not that all women "have" to submit to their husbands -- I wouldn't tell someone what to do on this issue. My point is that the Bible has set out a standard that, when followed correctly, is a good thing.

Anonymous — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 07:26:09 GMT

Submission is still submission. Power over another. Submission is when there are differing views, and one must submit to another. If women are not uncomfortable with this, then they probably either:

(a) are saying they submit, but are really not having to submit. As a previous poster said, they let their husbands think they are running the show. So there is no reason to feel uncomfortable.

(b) are submissive people by nature, and are not uncomfortable with submission.

In other words, you are either submissive by nature, and are comfortable with submission to your husband. Or you are not comfortable, and either act like your husband is running the show, or you opening disagree with it.

I think that all of these types are in the minority, and most couples agree to be equal partners, and there is give and take, compromise, and no planned submission by either one on a full time basis. Yes, each submits or gives in equally during the life of the relationship, but neither one plans to submit consistently all of the time.

I think there are many Christian women who say they submit to their husbands, but in practice they are not. It may be just symbolic.

The problem with this is that while it may work out for them with no negative implications, it hurts other women who do have a problem with a dominant husband, and this idea of biblical submission is a real problem for them. I have never advised in all the years of counseling battered women, that a woman submit biblically to her husband - just the opposite. It may be easy for strong women to say they submit biblically to their husband, because they are strong, and it doesn't really happen, it is mostly symbolic. But for Christian women that are weak, and have a problem with a dominant husband, this is a dangerous creed for them to follow. In my Christian counseling center for battered women, this idea of submitting to your husband is one of the biggest problems we see women for.

The way to follow this biblically is to take the definition of submission as respect. But this goes both ways also, and the husband also respects the wife, or submits to the wife. Dominance as submission over another only leads to problems.

Christian Counselor

Linda — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:10:03 GMT

He found it somewhere in the bible that he must 'submit' to this idiot's instruction

Putting submission into practice can be difficult and complicated when not everyone involved is acting according the the biblical guidelines. And submission is not even biblical if, for example, the leader is asking a person to act in ways that are against God's standards. But the principle of submission and selfless, sacrificial leadership is biblical and, in my opionion, nothing to cringe about. It's not a power issue if handled correctly.

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:50:45 GMT

I've also struggled with this little item. I once worked for a wonderful man as an assistant in a school setting who was smart, educated and truly held the highest ethics while performng his position and who was also a born-again Christian. He, in turn, was 'supervised' by one of the biggest idiots who ever walked this earth (a school principal). He found it somewhere in the bible that he must 'submit' to this idiot's instruction, not matter what. That's when I began to 'wonder' about born-again Christians.

Also Curious

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:35:03 GMT

I, too am uncomfortable with the notion that women should submit to their husbands. I can understand why men would agree to this but will never figure out why women give in to this notion. It doesn't matter how nicely the word submit is defined when you come down to the bottom line submission is still saying man has power over woman.

Anonymous — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:33:33 GMT

In the general population of this country, a majority of people would take offense to the idea that women should submit to their husband. But in the microcosm of people that log in this forum, it looks as if the majority feels that women should submit to their husband.
What surprises me is that it is not just the male conservatives in here that feel that way, but females also.

Could it be that only the people who feel compelled to reply are of that opinion, or does virtually everyone in this forum believe that women should submit to their husband? If anyone else is uncomfortable with this view as I am, speak up.

Curious

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:42:44 GMT

"Do_Go, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

SF

Spring — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:58:52 GMT

I agree with Linda that it only works properly if both do their part. But even if it does not work - at all or in part - what counts is the intention behind. If I purposely try to get my way and just make my husband believe that he is the leader this is certainly not what God wants, and it is not a sign of strength of the woman also. There's nothing saying that a wife shouldn't say so if she sees a problem with what her husband wanted or decided, in making suggestions. Maybe she sees things he plain overlooked, and based on her good reasons he could very well change his mind. And respecting the husband as the head of the family must not mean that the husband is to be involved in just everything so he can decide everything. The norm will rather be that they've agreed on areas where each of them will decide on what appears best at the time - and where the wife does it within the agreed area, it's NOT against following her husband - and other areas where they consult each other.

The problem starts where both don't follow the bible, e.g. man becoming a despot, wife undermining his authority, both fighting against each other, hiding things from one another. But that problem is not solved simply by saying that a woman should not follow her husband. Anyways, in these cases, where the husband gravely ignores her well-being, he's not following God's law and she's not bound to follow her husband.

Linda — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 17:42:17 GMT

I suspect that there are women who "let their husbands 'think' they're running the show" in all walks of life and in many types of churches. I doubt that these women are feminists, because if they were they would probably be fairly assertive and open about their control. I suspect that many of the women who run the show behind the scenes just think (correctly or incorrectly depending on the case) that this is the best way to get things done -- and to keep their husbands happy while getting things done.

When I was a young adult, an older woman I knew well made the comment to me that women really run things, but that they let their husbands think that THEY are making the decisions. This is precisely what SF is talking about. So I agree with SF that there LOTS of women who have much more influence than their husbands realize.

The Bible has set a standard for marriage. This standard includes a husband who leads with his wife's best interests in mind and a wife who is willing to trust and follow her husband's selfless leadership. This really is a great formula if followed correctly. It obviously won't work as well if the husband and/or wife act selfishly within the relationship and don't hold up his/her end of the biblical bargain.

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:06:18 GMT

SF,

I am shocked that you would raise the specter of such a movie on this forum! Shocked I say! Tis only once in a blue moon that I am so shocked.

BTW, I entirely agree that "feminine" and "feminist" are often not mutually inclusive.

Do Go Be Man
<><

P.S. before anyone takes my shock too seriously, please consider the wink and the link.