 Posted Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:01 PM
|
|
|
|
| should a man submit to their wife?
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:51 AM
|
|
|
|
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
<><
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:40 AM
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 20, 2008 4:03 AM
|
|
|
|
In the comments below, it was noted that women "submitting" to their husbands does not come naturally, but that it is a decision that a woman must make if she is to be involved in a marriage according to the translation of the Bible.
To me, if it does not come naturally, then perhaps someone might have translated this for their own purpose as God's intentions for women. Let's see, wasn't the word of God written by a man? Could this have anything to do with it?
There are dominant and submissive personalities in both genders. While some men need to lead, others need to follow. Many good people have had wonderful marriages that have lasted for many years even though the woman never "submitted". Does this mean that even though they have had a wonderful marriage and they have been good people, they are still not carrying out what God intended?
To me, relationships need to be between two people who feel equal in their value, love, responsiblity and commitment to the relationship. Each should have an equal voice in the relationship. Anything less means that someone, male or female, is valued less than the other.
I, for one, would never consider any such relationship for myself or my parter. If it comes down to submitting to a man or living on my own, I would live alone and get to be a whole person instead of a fragment of one. I don't care what the Bible says about submitting, it also says that we were all created equal and for this reason alone it makes no sense to me that one should have to submit to the other.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:18 AM
|
|
|
|
| I agree with you! I let my husband lead, but he has to wait for me to tell him where to go! He wears the pants, but I tell him which pair to wear! I have been married almost 25 years and would never take the "submit to your husbands" passage literally. That can really get you into trouble! Look at the polygamist and all of the physically, emotionally, and verbally abused wives who take this passage literally. A give and take, balanced relationship makes for a more stable marriage. In some matters, a husband may be the better leader, in other matters, a wife may be.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 20, 2008 1:41 PM
|
|
|
|
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:
...giv(e) thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.
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
<><
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, November 22, 2008 1:58 AM
|
|
|
|
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.
Shaneen Clarke
|
|
|
Posted Monday, November 24, 2008 7:36 AM
|
|
|
|
joanne (11/22/2008)
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.
It may work for you, but that does not mean it will work for everyone.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Monday, November 24, 2008 8:17 PM
|
|
|
|
| It's nice to have you on the forums, joanne. I'm wondering -- what is your connection to Christian Science?
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Submissive, Wife's obligation, no big deal. Sounds exhausting - but where is the love? Where is the husband's respect for his wife? Where is his respect for God?
As years pass by in marriage, opinions and so called obligations change.
Jan
|
|
|
|