 Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Liberal Christian,
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).
Taken out of context as it is, I would cringe at the comment as well if I didn't recognize what it represents.
I very much appreciate that the women on the forum have shown they don't think I'm quite the misogynist as could be implied.
One of the vital lessons I learned coming out of CS was to consider the context of Scripture. Someone on the forum suggested the 20/20 rule to consider at least the 20 verses before and the 20 verses after a given passage. Any Bible verse can be taken out of context and applied to mean just about anything.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:32 PM
|
|
|
|
I am a conservative female and I have absolutely no problem with the "women must submit to their husbands" quote. I happen to agree and even find comfort in that! But, having said such... is my husband the leader of this household? No. I do everything. He isn't even the spiritual leader in this house! How is that working for me? NOT very well at all. He works and makes the money aside from that he does nothing. It is not what I had envisioned. At all. I'm pretty sure God didn't have that in mind for marriage either.
I find Do Go extremely fair toward women and not anti-woman (misogynistic) at all. At all. Ever.
I think that the whole submit thing is blown out of proportion and can be taken advantage of by men who want to have an excuse to do bad things to women, or treat them badly and just have the perfect excuse. Hey, it's in the B-I-B-L-E! Remember the Southern Baptist Convention a few years ago? People had a field day with their debating the "submit to your husbands" quote. It was really a bad time for SBC and no one ever could really explain sufficiently what they meant. It was awful.
Binky
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:41 PM
|
|
|
|
I am fascinated by the responses. I know that this is not a scientific poll, but I did expect somebody beside myself to have a problem with the concept of women submitting to their husbands.
I think your quotes were interesting Linda, but they don't convince me. You are saying that everyone is created equal, and that people are to submit to one another. In any equation when you say they are equal, you can reverse the sides, and they are still equal. So you can say that men should submit to their wives. If you can't say that, then it is not an equal equation. I don't think you would agree with the reverse, or would you?
I think that everyone who responded here so far believes that women should submit to their husbands. I don't care how benign you try to make that sound, it is unequal. You say that men should love, respect, revere, etc, their wives. I agree with that. It is equal, and women should love, respect, revere etc. to their husbands. An equal equation. But you never say or quote that men should submit to their wives. But you DO say that women should submit to their husbands. NOT equal.
You either believe that women should submit, and men should not, or you don't. Which is it? You can't believe that, and then say it is equal, and they should submit to each other.
Linda, if your husband is the president, then it is not equal.
Binky, I never said that Do_Go is unfair to women did I? I respect Do_Go and hope he does the same of me. We have different opinions, but he doesn't need defending. He is very capable I think. I do agree with you that many men take advantage of this issue. I also agree that it is comforting to some women to submit, but that would be voluntary. I think what we are debating is involuntary submission. If it was voluntary, we wouldn't have an issue.
I would still like to hear more opinions on this issue. I usually find many people who agree with me on this issue. But I guess not in this forum yet.
Liberal Christian
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 4:44 PM
|
|
|
|
I've mentioned another perspective on this submit and love (aka respect and love) issue before.
A Christian ministry called Love and Respect says that men crave respect and women crave love, but neither naturally does one for the other. Thus, Paul felt it necessary to tell husbands (who tend to understand, seek, and provide respect more than love) they must love their wives (who tend to understand, seek, and provide love more than respect). Wives were told they must respect their husbands.
Dr. Emerson E. Eggerichs refers to this as the Crazy Cycle.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Linda, if your husband is the president, then it is not equal.
You're thinking of outward things -- status or mere position. They have nothing to do with a person's inherent, God-given value, which is what I was referring to per my comment that Genesis establishes that God created man and woman as equals. I have managed lab technicians in the past and I currently do some teaching. Managing and teaching people put me in a postion of authority over them (they are in submission to me), but it does not make me unequal with (superior to) them in the sense of "equal" that I was talking about in my post above. In God's eyes, men and women hold equal inherent value (Christ died for both).
Ephesians 6:9 implies that even slaves and their masters hold equal value in the eyes of God when it says: "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." (emphasis added)
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:24 PM
|
|
|
|
| My marriage is not based on submission, and never has been. I have been happily married for over 30 years, and we are Christians. My interpretation is somewhat different than that of most conservative Christians. An interesting explanation can be found here
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:35 AM
|
|
|
|
When we hear that wives should submit to their husbands, what comes to mind, usually is some horrible sczenario with one person having all the say and the other one in a very unfortunate situation, burdened with rules which make her life miserable.
Submission of wives to their husbands is embedded in the rules that husbands must love their wives as their own body (because they are one flesh) and serve them in love. And though husbands are humans and thus subject to sin and will not always be perfect in their leadership, wives will not have to submit to them for anything that goes against biblical teachings.
It's difficult for me to say what I do myself. My claim is to follow the bible in everything as much as I understand it, and that would mean that I must submit to my husband. But that's really easy for me. My husband loves to leave many things for me to do because he thinks I can do them much better, and for things which concern both of us, we usually find something which makes both of us happy. Overall, when it comes to things where our opinions differ - e.g. on church, I belong to a (presbyterian or reform?) calvinist church, and my husband is a non-practicing catholic, I did discuss my choice of church with him and sought his support for my decision, but I am very well aware that my husband mostly goes with what he thinks is good for me and will make me happy. Regarding church, I was a CSist when we met, and right away I had asked him if we could agree on him let me practice my religion as I thought appropriate and my promise that I'd never drag him to join in anything though he would always be welcome. This general agreement stands even though I've left CS and have become a Christian. But still, I would think twice about joining a church would my choice meet my husband's opposition.
Again, with this husband, it is very easy to submit, maybe my views would be different were I married to some strange despot.
But that's my opinion on the bible passage. Yet, my prime belief is that we must strive to understand the meaning of a bible passage but that we are to follow it to the best of our understanding and ability, and that we are not to say "I'll follow this because I think it's a good idea" or "I will not follow that one because I consider it outdated". I've concluded that I will not understand the logic of everything in the bible. And while I would oppose any church authority who would demand I follow him without thinking or checking against the bible for that, I do understand that I will never understand all of God or of what He did or why He did it. I cannot even create a tree - and He created the universe with everything in it!
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:02 AM
|
|
|
|
I'm probably asking for more trouble, but perhaps looking at the definition of the word "submit" would help (and maybe not).
The American Heritage Dictionary offers four definitions of different flavors:
1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
2. To subject to a condition or process.
3. To commit (something) to the consideration or judgment of another.
4. To offer as a proposition or contention.
Of those four, I think the first one is less a priority in my understanding of the intent of the passage.
I very much believe the Bible requires the partnership aspects of marriage, however, with two people there are bound to be times of disagreement and the need for a tie-breaker. I think that God put that responsibility on husbands along with the responsibility to make such decisions in a spirit of love and with wisdom sought from the Holy Spirit.
If a husband expects his wife to submit to matters that are not otherwise in line with God's word, the husband violates his (and His) leadership. I feel that a husband who neglects the spiritual demands of his headship thereby abdicates. I don't think that God expects wives to blindly submit or submit to anything which violates spiritual, legal, or moral law.
An important point to note is that Ephesians was written to believers. Paul covered the issue of a believer married to an unbeliever elsewhere.
The full context of the passage we're discussing shows that a Christian husband must conduct himself as a Christian leader as the husband must submit to Christ.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go,
Makes sense to me.
dawn comes,
Very interesting article. Its conclusions (that men are to lead rather than to rule over their wives, that women are to submit voluntarily, etc.) sound a lot like what I am reading from most who have posted on this thread. So I'm not sure that we're all that far apart on what submission means.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:42 AM
|
|
|
| | |