 Posted Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:39 PM
|
|
|
|
The following is a comment by Do_Go_Be_Man in another forum that I would like to see more feedback from:
women must submit to their husbands (the heads of their households).
This is my response back to him:
I think you definitely have a very conservative view when it comes to women. I think that most conservative women would even argue with you on your stance that a woman should submit to her husband. Or that a woman cannot hold high positions in the church. I would like to see this debated in another thread actually, because I think that issue may get many comments. I know many conservative men that have even given in on that issue and do not hold your view. I bet you get a lot of protest when you admit your view on that one.
I am curious on everyone's view on this. I assumed that even most conservatives did not believe this anymore. Maybe I am wrong. I am especially interested in female conservative's view. So anyone, please let your view be know here in this new thread.
Liberal Christian
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, May 30, 2006 7:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Liberal Christian,
I'm a little concerned that the focus on submission makes me and my beliefs to seem rather rigid and disrespectful of women. Such an impression would be totally false.
Marriage is a partnership, but as the man I am held responsible for the spiritual and physical wellbeing of my wife and family. Thus, a wife submitting to her husband should not in anyway be considered subservience. I'm afraid that any analogy I suggest will be misinterpreted or imperfect, but maybe I can try.
Imagine the role and responsibility of a licensed wilderness guide in a National Park populated by hungry, aggressive Grizzly bears. The guide works for his clients and is responsible for their safety. He has a duty to use all his knowledge, experience, and resources to ensure the safety and enjoyment of his customers. Yet, even his most wealthy, most otherwise powerful client is obligated to submit to his lead as he is obligated to respect them.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 6:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go used the following as an analogy:
Imagine the role and responsibility of a licensed wilderness guide in a National Park populated by hungry, aggressive Grizzly bears. The guide works for his clients and is responsible for their safety. He has a duty to use all his knowledge, experience, and resources to ensure the safety and enjoyment of his customers. Yet, even his most wealthy, most otherwise powerful client is obligated to submit to his lead as he is obligated to respect them.
Do Go,
You indicated in your post that this analogy is imperfect, so one should, of course, be careful in how far one attempts to push it. However, to me, one implication of using this analogy in relationship to women submitting to their husbands would be that the clients of the licensed wilderness guide lack the ability or qualities to ever become guides themselves or that somehow they are legally prohibited from doing so. Just as apparently a wife in a marriage lacks the qualities to ever share in the responsibility for the "spiritual and physical well-being" of the family, or is prohibited by God's word in the Bible from doing so.
Is this what you believe, or have I pushed what seems to me to be the implications of the analogy here to the point that it distorts what you believe?
tmcl
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 6:47 AM
|
|
|
|
tmcl,
You indicated in your post that this analogy is imperfect, so one should, of course, be careful in how far one attempts to push it.
As we agree, the analogy lacks perfection and shouldn't be pushed too hard.
Women are extremely capable, should be treated with all respect, and considered partners. I hestitate to go further than that. This is one of those issues like predestination and baptism that you either get or don't.
The point is that men are required to be servant leaders, but women are not servants to men.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Quite recently I went with my neighbours to a family meeting along with their friends, all are Christian in thinking. (40 or so attended) They would much prefer this type of meeting to glorify God than to attend a Church to do so. It was brilliant, the children knew the songs, the very small knew their Scripture, all were eager to join in, I had the most perfect time with men and women who treated each other as perfect partners. My neighbour's husband read out Proverbs 31 in honor of his wife.
I happened to read an article printed 24th May 2006, titled Honoring Our Wives, written by David Alan Black. Quite a good article to pass onto husbands and wives.
I keep wondering Liberal Christian just how much of Do_Go_Be_Man's posts have you read? I have never read or even interpreted any content of his posts to be offensive to women or the homosexual community.
Jan
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Jan,
I have not read all of Do_Go's posts, but I have read many. As I'm sure he has written hundreds on here, I'm sure you have not read all either. I do appreciate Do_Go's attitude of others in his postings. He is respectful of others when he debates issues with them. I am not "dissing" him, but I do disagree with him on many issues. I also agree with him on many too.
You say you have never read any posts by Do_Go to be offensive to women. Maybe you would not use the word "offensive" to descibe his comment women must submit to their husbands (the heads of their households). Why don't you tell us how you do describe it.
My initial reaction is that I am definitely uncomfortable with it. I am a man, and I can just feel women "cringe" when they read such comments.
I am interested in this thread to find out other's views. I'm glad you have responded, and it seems that it doesn't bother you. If that is not true, please let us know. I have assumed for many years that this is not "politically correct" anymore, even with "most" conservatives. I know that some still hold this view, and many hold it in private, but not in public. So I'm trying to get a consensus in here with former CSer's like myself that followed a religion led by a woman, and are now Christians.
In my house, my wife is the leader, because someone usually has more of a talent to lead, and it is her. I am glad that my daughters have a good role model, and we do make decisions together, but it is her who usually takes the day to day lead. She is also the spiritual leader, since she has a much longer Christian upbringing than I do, since I am new to it, being born and raised CS.
My liberal tendencies just make me cringe when I read the comments such as women must submit to their husbands (the heads of their households). I am curious what others feel when they read it, and if they agree or disagree. Let me know Jan. From your post it appears that you are ok with it.
Liberal Christian
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:26 AM
|
|
|
|
"In my house, my wife is the leader, because someone usually has more of a talent to lead, and it is her (sic)."
I'd say it's pretty obvious why Do_Go's remarks make you cringe. CS must've done a number on you, LC.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:38 AM
|
|
|
|
I'd say it's pretty obvious why Do_Go's remarks make you cringe. CS must've done a number on you, LC.
Whoever you are (you didn't sign a name), if that is meant to make me feel shame I don't. I am completely comfortable with letting my wife lead at home. We each take take the lead in different areas, and I am not at home as much as her due to my profession, so I am totally in favor of her leading the household. And no, CS didn't do a big number on me. I am lucky, and don't have a lot of baggage left from CS. I have been away from it about 30 years now.
I am sure that if the situation was reversed, and I ran things at home, that I would still cringe at the statement:
women must submit to their husbands (the heads of their households).
Although I can understand why men would like that statemnt, I cannot understand why women accept it. I would like to hear more opinions.
Liberal Christian
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Submission does not imply that one party is less important or less competent than the other party. For example, Jesus submitted to his Father during the time he was on earth. Jesus was still God-incarnate, but he submitted himself to the Father while completing his task here.
Marriage is intended to be a picture of Christ and his church. This picture is laid out in Ephesians 5, which I will discuss below:
Ephesians 5 starts out with Paul's instruction to believers to "Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. " (verses 1-2)
Paul then gives a series of instructions to the Ephesians regarding how they can be imitators of God and live Godly lives by avoiding sexual immorality, coarse joking, drunkeness, etc. Finally, in verse 21, Paul says:
"21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Notice that the people in the church are to submit to one another.)
THEN, in verse 22, Paul begins his instructions for wives and husbands and compares their relationship to Christ's relationship to the church.
I'll copy verses 22-33 here and highlight pertinent phrases:
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
The husband-wife relationship described here is really beautiful, with the husband loving his wife sacraficially and with her best interest always in mind. He isn't looking down on her or treating her as a servant; he is giving every part of himself to her just as Christ gave himself to his church (that is, to all believers). That's a very different picture from the boss-dormat relationship that our modern culture conjurs up when someone mentions the idea of wives submitting to their husbands.
Genesis makes it clear that God created man and woman as equals, so equality or worth is not the issue here.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:09 AM
|
|
|
|
| By the way, "home management" has nothing to do with the concept of submission. I manage most of the household and day-to-day decsions since I am home more than my husband and have more time for such things. My husband takes the lead in some areas and I take the lead in others. We discuss all major decsions and often defer to each other's wishes if we don't totally agree on something. We work as a team. But my husband is the leader of our household in the sense that a president leads a corporation.
|
|
|
|