Thread: Dead Horses: Headship Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001285

---

Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on :
 
As I'm new round here I'm not sure where I should be asking this (or even if there is an archived thread that will answer my questions) but....

Does anyone have anyone have any sensible, rational views on headship and submission that fit in with both the Bible and the 21st Century?

I mean, as far as I can see it, the Bible seems to say that God has created man and woman to be equal but to have slightly different, but complimentary roles. Taking into account the cultural context of many of the relevant passages (particularly the Pauline ones) - it still seems to me that God has different roles for man and woman, especially as husband and wife.

What I don't understand, however, is the concept of submission. Call me a heretic if you want, but I just cannot accept that in this day and age, I should "submit" to my husband. I know that submission is a complex issue, but the idea of me having to allow my husband have the final say in a decision (however loving he may be) just seems unacceptable! Maybe I am a product of Generation x growing up with equal opportunities shouted from every roof-top but I refuse to think of my forth-coming marriage as anything but a partnership of equals - with 50/50 voting rights!

I'd be interested in anyone else's views of how they apply these biblical principles to their 21st Century marriage...

What does anyone else think?

[ 25. May 2016, 18:30: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
sensible and rational thoughts? on the Ship??????
you must be joking!

Seriously though, Snow White, you are right to question anybody who demands that you be submissive - this suggestion IME is usually made by someone who wants to dominate you (using the bible as an excuse). And you know you are the fairest of them all, so don't let them! If anyone tries to make you believe you have to live like that, just set the dwarfs on them or give them that poisoned apple...or something.......
 

---

Posted by locust-eater (# 2940) on :
 
The apostle Paul never married- IMHO, if he had, he might not have relied so much on clever metaphors for his theology in that regard... or maybe that's why he never married...

It should be pointed out, though, that Paul's metaphor centers around Christ-as-head-of-church, and Christ, as that head, is neither a "boss" nor a "master"- he's a servant and, yes, our partner. He got the be head of the church through sacrfice. All the business about man being the "head" of women is, in context, not even about obedience, per se, but about how women behave in church. Many scholars beleive the Corinthian church had, as converts, a good number of women who had converted from the cult of Mithra, which was a priestess cult, one in which the women ran the show, and in which there was a lot of gender-bending rituals and temple prostitution. They guess that Paul's comments about "busybodies" and about propriety in worship comes from these women, who were trying to "import" Mithra rites into Christian practice. Paul's instructions are just a reminder of Jewish regulations about women in synagogue.

Either way, should you meet a man (or a church) who thinks you ought to "submit" to your husband, run away, run far, far away. He (they) is (are) up to no good.

-le
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
St. John Chrysostom, one of our power hitters, said that the most that could be demanded of a woman is that she not insult her husband in public. Anything above that is dependent upon his treatment of her.

That's not 21st century however but 4th/5th century.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on :
 
The funny thing is that it is me arguing for headship and my fiance arguing against!! (Being Snow White, I am actually a girl!)

I just see that there are so many models in the bible of male headship within the family. I just can't see how this means I should submit (and there's not much chance of this anyway! . I think God must be getting at something in the Bible with so many models of a male head. But what does this mean for a loud dominating 21st century mid twentys girl and her quiet hen-pecked fiancee?!
 

---

Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on :
 
When you work it out, will you let this very independent-minded 21st century girl and her quiet longsuffering husband know?

We're very new at this (not a year yet) so I'm not going to claim much knowledge... the thing with 50/50 voting rights is who gets the casting vote?

There are issues my husband and I disagree on. Some of them are issues where we can agree to disagree. Sometimes we have talked things through, and he has come round to my opinion. Somtimes I come around to his. What happens though, when we have a disagreement over a particular decision (ie where it is not possible to simply agree to disagree) and neither of us are budging?

I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility. But that would only happen after much much discussion, not just as a dismissal out of hand of my opinion or feelings.

Out of interest, and because it's never occurred to me before, you say that you are happy with the idea of his headship, but not of your submission. Can you describe how you can have one without the other?

By the way, I do wince whenever I type 'submit'. But I think that's just the word, not the concept!!

bird

at work and typing fast - apologies for gibberish
 

---

Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on :
 
Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

I don't have any formulated hard views in my head which is why I am struggling! I agree that God has given very different roles to man and wife and that it seems to be that the husband is the head of the family. Beyond all the cultual issues it seems to me that God is "hinting" at a principle...But I don't know what it is or how it would be worked out today!

I just hate the idea of my husband making a decision that was against my view. Perhaps that is a lesson in humility that I need to learn!

It also seems very difficult when in many areas I am the leader. He is a relatively new Christian (although I probably have more to learn from him than he does from me). I am usually better informed about finance, work issues, current events etc and often provide a rational viewpoint to his views! But that's not to say he is any less - he is a wonderful, kind caring thoughtful man who has a hungry heart for God... but if anyone was to be the natural leader - we would both say that I was!

Perhaps this will change when we are married? Over years?

I want to have a biblically based marriage but struggle when the biblical model we both see seems so far removed from our situation!

Help!
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Birdie:
I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility. But that would only happen after much much discussion, not just as a dismissal out of hand of my opinion or feelings.

---

This is how my wife and I have worked it out also. It has never come down to invoking that authority yet, and I hope it never does. I can tell you that knowing the responsibility ultimately rests on my shoulders makes me much more cautious and considerate than I might be naturally.

scot
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Everything that has been said thus far rings true for me and my wife also. We've never had it come to a stalemate yet (may it never do so!) but should it do so, I have the responsibility to cast the tie-breaking vote, and stand by the consequences.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I think Birdie and Mousethief have pretty much said it, so I don't have to post my own identical views...

Submission, obedience, and hierarchy have been given a bad rap in our era, in my view. But I've posted ad nauseam about this elsewhere... you might want to look at C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and what he says about marriage there.

Or I could just post the link here.

"Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the `head'. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all - why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?"

There's also this essay, "Membership," though I warn the reader that this particular web page is pretty painful to try to read, but at least it has the text. They need to fix their typeface...

"Authority exercised with humility and obedience accepted with delight are the very lines along which our spirits live. Even in the life of the affections, much more in the Body of Christ, we step outside that world which says 'I am as good as you.' It is like turning from a march to a dance. It is like taking off our clothes. We become, as Chesterton said, taller when we bow; we become lowlier when we instruct."

Lewis in another essay I cannot find online explains further his notions (with which I wholeheartedly agree) about authority and hierarchy, not legally enforced but freely undertaken, of husband over wife as well as priest over layman and others. (If there is anything Lewis ever said with which I personally disagree, it is that he is more democratic than I am.)

David
trying to learn obedience with delight and authority with humility
 

---

Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snow White:

I just hate the idea of my husband making a decision that was against my view. Perhaps that is a lesson in humility that I need to learn!

---

Yes, it sounds awful, I agree. But do bear in mind that this is your husband, who (presumably ) you love and respect, and who loves and respects you. It's not like he's going to come home one day and say "hello dear, I've decided XY and Z, and I don't want to hear your opinion on it, because I'm <beats chest> the man". At least I hope not... These things happen after lots of discussion and throwing ideas around.

I think the principles of submission & headship are there, and how they work out in your marriage is something you'll discover as you go along. We're all different.

I think what Scot said:

quote:

---

I can tell you that knowing the responsibility ultimately rests on my shoulders makes me much more cautious and considerate than I might be naturally.

---

is also very important.

By the way, there are a couple of references earlier in the thread to husbands, churches or people generally 'demanding' your submission. No-one demands that I submit to my husband. I submit to my husband (in the ways already described) because I think there is a biblical principle there.

bird
 

---

Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on :
 
sorry, that last para should have been "I choose to submit to my husband because..."

bird
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
if there is free choice involved, birdie, that is fine. But the 'command' gets into difficult water when a dictatorial leader demands it and a person is in a difficult situation, such as having a very dominant partner. If one is in such a situation (fortunately not mine) imagine the guilt that person would feel when they tried to stick up for themselves. (They would feel they were going against the bible )

I have been in an experience where a priest tried to 'divide and conquer' using this 'be submissive' command. It was pretty unpleasant, but fortunately we saw through what he was trying to do. It may not be a commonly used technique but it helps to be aware that it can happen.
 

---

Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on :
 
I do appreciate that. Any principle can be abused, and I think you were right in your earlier post to suggest that Snow White should question anyone who 'demands' her submission.

I am also aware that I am very fortunate in my position where my submission to my husband is not abused.

However the fact that a principle or doctrine might be abused doesn't mean we should therefore not bother with it any more. Not that that's what you're saying, I'm sure.

bird
 

---

Posted by gbuchanan (# 415) on :
 
Ok, start with disclosure, I'm male and I am very much against headship.

How I've dealt with the issue is that each partner brings individual strengths and weaknesses to the relationship. There are a number of factors which can determine the casting vote - experience and knowledge, personal risk, etc. Most often, for me it's come down to expertise.

Where things get beyond making a sensible decision by such criteria, toss a coin (or similar). If it's important, then wait. If it's important and urgent, and it's 50/50 on who should take the lead, then behave like adults and return to the coin if needsbe.

Whatever you do, no 'I told you so's - we all make bad decisions from time to time.
 

---

Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on :
 
I guess what I am learning from this is that I will have to trust that my partner is in tune with God. Hopefully if we are both in tune with Him we should be both singing from the same song-sheet (as it were!)

gbuchanan - why are you against headship? It seems to me that it is a biblical concept - even taking into account the relevant cultural contexts of certain passages.

I do love and respect my fiancee and I guess marriage is about trusting someone despite their faults. I am also beginning to realise that this is something I am going to have to help him (and let him) "grow" into. It seems to me that headship is part of being male and that for him to develop into the most "Jesus like" man he can - headship (within the God given gift of marriage) is integral to this. (For him anyway - I can't speak for those that are not married!)

And perhaps submission is part of my femaleness.... but I'm struggling with that concept!!
 

---

Posted by Hagar (# 1338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snow White:
It also seems very difficult when in many areas I am the leader. He is a relatively new Christian (although I probably have more to learn from him than he does from me). I am usually better informed about finance, work issues, current events etc and often provide a rational viewpoint to his views! But that's not to say he is any less - he is a wonderful, kind caring thoughtful man who has a hungry heart for God... but if anyone was to be the natural leader - we would both say that I was!

---

It seems to me that the beauty of our modern society is that we stop looking to rigid sexual stereotypes and look at the person. You say that you have the talents to be the natural leader, then maybe God expects you to use them. In another post you say your finance is henpecked Maybe, that is where you have to work, to try to lead without controling your partner.

You mention the fact that the Bible is full of male "headship" models. Well, that's true but I think that a lot of that is cultural. Our tradition comes out of a hyper-patriarchal system. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, was rejecting a female dominated church as well. Paul then says there is no male, there is no female, we are all one in Christ.

I think that the principle involved here is that we should treat each other as individuals and not as sexes. In some relationship the woman will lead, in others the man. Each relationship has to determine its own way to act. It is much easer just to say men act this way and women act another. However, I think we are called to dig deeper than that.

This creates a special challenge to those women who find themselves in roles of authority and men in submissive roles. Each will have to learn to act faithfully and responsibly. However, I think that this is much better than denying your own character and submitting to a model that just doesnt fit.
 

---

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
My own disclosure: Female, with history of 1 unsuccessful marriage, with my ex-husband & I continuing to care about each other as separate individuals - and he became a really good father to our daughter as she got older (he wasn’t into it when she was little).

I agree with gbuchanan on this. I don’t think the dominant/submissive model works at all in personal adult relationships, and I suspect it isn’t optimal even in other arenas – although it is the most practical and efficient.

I respect those who have said “The Bible says certain things, and I need to look at my motives if I can’t subscribe to those words without reservation” – but I submit there is a need to look deeper and more seriously at the Bible than that. Jesus made a point, repeatedly and habitually in His actions and words, that the primary relationship for each person is the one between the individual and God.

In cultures where there is a practical need for one person, not two, to be the head and decision-maker, as far as I know there was consensus that was the way it needed to be, basically for physical & cultural health & survival.

There is no such consensus & no such need in our culture, for good reason, IMHO. I think a major task of our culture is learning somehow to co-exist on a planet which is shrinking and sickening. All of us will need to learn graceful “mutual submission” for our own survival.

I question whether the women who are saying they subscribe to their husband being the head (simply by virtue of his gender) will still do so – if, for instance, their husband decides to do something they truly think is unwise. I appreciate Scot’s comments re: how such responsibility makes him more thoughtful (every good parent is aware of that dynamic) but I really think that applies to both partners in a marriage, and I like gbuchanan’s model of the one with more expertise being deferred to. That seems like common sense to me.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snow White:
And perhaps submission is part of my femaleness.... but I'm struggling with that concept!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And what happens when a woman is widowed? Does she suddenly become more capable of making good decisions?

---

No. The deceased's brother is supposed to marry her
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]I suspect if submission were really a part of femaleness, it wouldn't be such a struggle.
<snip>
I really don't see that there can be any head of household other than Christ.

---

Submission is part of humanity (or at least Christianity) and I for one find it to be a real bitch.

RuthW, please don't misunderstand anything I wrote above to mean that Christ is not the head of my household. I answer to Him, as does my wife. Sorry if that part was not clear.

scot
 

---

Posted by Kerry (# 202) on :
 
I am female and married and a Christian. I take my faith seriously, but I also take my own life seriously, and hence that is why I am both a Christian and a feminist. Having studied the texts in question quite carefully, I cannot honestly see any reason why the submission-obedience argument has to apply within marriage. It absolutely has to apply in our relationship with God, I completely see that, but I really DON'T get why that has to be extended to the family power structure, within what was a very very very very different kind of society! Gender relations are, I think, key to this debate, if we are not to descend into a an overly literalistic model of Bible interpretation.
Great theological thinker that he is, and great model of churchmanship that he provides, I don't take Paul's advice completely literally. That is to say, I am a woman and I don't cover my head in church. I also don't believe that I am bound to obey my husband, except in the ways in which he is also bound to obey me. How do we get around the idea of a stalemate? Well, if we ever have one, one of us will have to give way. At the moment, serious disagreements (of which there have been few) are resolved by appeals to principle. If one of us is arguing from principle and the other from convenience, then the other one wins. If we ever reached a point where we were both arguing from equally strong principles, then it would be up to us, in prayer and humility, to decide which one of us would step back and allow the other one to take the responsibility for the decision. That is not about weakness or obedience and servitude, but love. And a sense of love which recognises that both partners should have a role to play in difficult decision-making, even if it is in the simple sense of stepping back.
Women and men have a right to make this choice, they have a right to give obedience in love and they also have a right to withhold it in love. There is no more reason why the male genitalia should have a monopoly on familial authority than why they should have a monopoly in church.

Kerry
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
You won't find a model of modern democracy in the Bible either, but you wouldn't take that to mean we're all meant to live in empires sustained by military conquest and enslaving of conquered peoples.

The ancient world was intensely hierarchical in ways which we would regard as abusive today.

Ancient theories of psychology and physiology falsely degraded both women and adult males who were slaves as not being capable of reason.

St Paul tried to ameliorate the abuses of this society by stressing that masters and husbands (free adult males)should behave kindly and respectfully.

In the context of his time and the congregations to which he was giving guidance, that was radical, pragmatic and humane.

Hpwever in the centuries intervening, we have learned that high-status adult males are not the only people in a society possessed of reason, and that behaving as if they are creates grave injustices.

We have also learned that ancient theories of physiology which were used to rationalize the second class status of women (such as Aristotle's theories about conception) are simply false.

We therefore have the same good grounds for saying that women should not submit to their husbands that we have for saying that slaves should not submit to their masters.

There are no grounds for slavery and there are similarly no grounds for female submission.

Louise
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
" (verse 21)..submitting to one another in the fear of God. (verse 22) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself." -Ephesians 5:21-28

The word "Hupotasso" (Hupo is a primary preposition meaning “under”. Tasso means “to arrange in an ORDERLY FASHION). is used here in verse 21 and 22. Same word but due to the grammer, the meaning is different in verse 21 from verse 22. Verse 21 means "yield" and verse 22 mean "subject under".

Note that men are commanded to "love their wives like Christ loved the church".

This is what the Word says and this is what I believe.

The Human reasoning of it...the bible was written too long ago and secular society is different now is not something I subscribe too.

When I first studied this...it caused me much grief. Now, I am reconciled to it. If I ever get married, it will be to a man I respect since he would have the final word on everything. Not a power hungry mongrel who barks orders and then sits on his lazy butt saying "Get me a beer now!".

If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.


 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I meant to say in a nutshell: if you are an inerrantist, you study the Word and figure out how to apply your life to it...rather than try to fit in only the parts you chose (like taking only what you want to eat from a cafeteria and leaving the rest).

The key word here is Heuristics...studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
duchess, I agree with the principle of Bible study you espouse. But, when you read Pauls letters "studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it" then the society (and the prejudices, expectations and understanding of that society) of the original recipients of those letters must be taken into account in just the way Louise and others have said. The result of such a study may well be to say that even if the letters in question are inerrant instructions to the churches they were sent that doesn't mean those same instructions are inerrant to us because our situation is so different. In this case that the husbands' headship & wifes' submission is not, in our society, the way marriage should be arranged.

That's not to say that the texts in question are meaningless today. I tend to the view that as the distinct gender roles assumed in the first century have been blurred and are almost non-existant today then so have the headship/submission roles in relationship. A husband and wife should, I think, share headship and submit to each other.

Of course, I'm single so I'm not talking from experience here at all.

Alan
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Perhaps this would be a good moment for a bit of caution and sensitivity. Let's not get into stating how one another's marriages should be arranged. I am quite happy with mine, as is the missus. I happily recommend our arrangement to one and all, but I will not presume to say that it is how you should do it. I would appreciate the same consideration from the other side of the aisle. Thanks.

scot
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I've never understood why cultural norms of one society should be imposed on another as though they represent God's law. We'd all agree that murder is wrong. In any generation. But Paul's comments about women? Actually, for his time, he was quite caring. He forbade Christians to mistreat their wives in any way. But He was a first century Jew. Women have never had much in the way of rights in Jewish or Islamic culture.

They are ritually unclean when menstruating(what utter crap!) Their husbands can divorce them for no better reason than wanting a change, but they have no right to divorce their husbands. Jesus, admittedly loved everyone in keeping with His revelation of God's love to humanity, but one thing which stands out in the gospels is His love of women and their love of Him, and I'm not reading a sexual connotation into that.

I don't think there's much room left for headship in the modern world. Nowadays in western society, usually both partners are wage earners. They need to divide both the responsibilities and the financies for the better life.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
With respect, Snow White, I note that you are not yet married. We all go into marriage with certain ideals we hope to live up to - one of yours seems to be this ideal of headship. Whilst there is nothing wrong with ideals, it is worth noting that you never really know what marriage will be like until you live it and it changes and develops from year to year. So be prepared to be flexible and revise your ideals from time to time.
For example, your husband may be ill at some time and you will need to take over responsibility for everything; he may need to do the same for you at other times.

I am struck by the number of times you read in the paper about a couple who are celebrating a phenomenal number of years together (sometimes as many as 70!) and they all seem to say the most important element of their marriage is 'give and take' - on both sides.
 

---

Posted by wader (# 2993) on :
 
I realize that there is a biblical argument for the husband being the head of the household. But, there's a biblical argument for a lot of things that I --- even though I call myself a Christian --- don't agree with (e.g. disallowing female priests, not recognizing the validity of homosexual love, selling your children into slavery, etc.).

My marriage with my wife has been a 50/50 partnership. We make decisions together, and when we don't agree, we discuss until either we agree, or someone gives in. Neither side has the cop-out of saying "I'm in charge, so we do what I say." We're forced to work out the differences if we want to stay together. And we very much want to stay together, so we always work out the differences.

Some people think that having someone appointed "in charge" helps to deal with cases where the two people simply cannot agree. I don't think so. If the two people have a truly irreconcilable (and unavoidable) difference, then that will lead to divorce, and the fact that one person agreed to "submit" to the other won't help. After all, if irreconcilable differences can get people to change their minds about "until death do us part", they are going to get people to change their minds about "submit and obey", too.

However (and this will be the more inflammable part of my post), I do think that one person promising to "submit" gives that person an excuse to get out of difficult decisions. If we have to do something that is difficult but necessary (e.g. punishing a child, putting a senile parent in a home, moving away from friends and family to get work, etc.), the submissive one has the option of not facing up to the difficult decision, but just letting the one who is "in charge" make the hard choice.

Disclaimer: I've been married for only 8 years, and although we've had an occasional disagreement, we've never had any really difficult decisions to make, nor have we had any real deep disagreements.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Paul, I respectfully disagree with you.

I think in some cases people can sacrifice many things and not have to have both parties work.

If I go further into this...this thread will surely end up in HELL since I am aware I have an unpopular view. .

But I will say this: just because society says "this is the way it is" doesn't mean it is always right or best way. I know you know that...but I also believe that when it comes to saying "the bible doesn't apply to us since it is rather outdated." The meaning still applies in my mind.

As an inerrantist, I don't believe the Bible is just a book with some nice stories that I might get something out of. That is why I take the time to try to study more in depth and not just see what fits into my life, and throw out the rest since I don't care for it. If somebody choses to do opposite, it is their progative, but hopefully recongise that that is what they are doing.

My own father is an errantist. He gave me a book which refers to people like myself as "making the Bible an idol" and "worshipping the bible". The writer of the book is a minister of a church in the Bay Area and my father knows him personally.

What I have learned from this [the situation with my dad especially since he became friends with this minister] is if I say much more, I will open a can of worms so I will stop now.

It isn't my intent to stir things up....I was responding to the original post and what I thought bascially for snow white.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
duchess, do you seriously think those of us who don't think the Bible is inerrant believe that it is "just a book with some nice stories that [you/we/anyone] might get something out of"? Because this is a serious misrepresentation of our position.

Scot, I meant no disrespect to the way you have arranged your marriage, or to the way others have either. But I do really wonder what it says about women in general if married women are to submit to their husbands, especially considering how many single women are doing just fine without husbands exercising headship or leadership or whatever.
 

---

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
I've posted this before, but...

My vicar taught a different meaning of this concept. We are told in various places to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ' ... 'prefer others' etc. So both husband and wife are submitting to each other. However (huge generalisation alert) many men find it hardest to exercise sacrificial love, and many women find it hardest not to nag and boss others about. So the passage alerts each of them to their greatest danger.

Now that still brings up the question of 'what if I don't fit into that generalisation', as well as sounding like some ancient version of 'Men are from Mars, Women are Gullible Enough to Buy this Book' But I've found a grain of truth in it. To put it another way, most men I know seem to have at least a trace of Essence of Homer, and most women have something of Essence of Marge!
 

---

Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But I do really wonder what it says about women in general if married women are to submit to their husbands, especially considering how many single women are doing just fine without husbands exercising headship or leadership or whatever.

---

quote:

---

most men I know seem to have at least a trace of Essence of Homer, and most women have something of Essence of Marge!

---

Brilliant!

I still maintain that if the 'deal' entails me submitting to my husband, and him loving me as Christ loves the church, I have the easier job.

bird
 

---

Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on :
 
Thank you so much everyone - this is very helpful.

It is interesting that the two sides of the debate are mirroring what is going on in my head.

Duchess - I have to say that I agree with you and this is part of my struggle. The theme of headship seems too deep a theme within the Bible to be dismissed as cultural (as much as I would like to!) I too agree that we need to look at the themes of the Bible and try to live to those, regardless of our culture and situation....

But on the other hand I agree with those of you who see submission and headship as inequal. I find myself coming back to "In Christ there is no male nor female etc"

Oh dear - this is making me question so many of my views! I hadn't realised what a hornet's nest I was opening for myself!

Chorister - I think your comment about us not being married yet is true and important. Hopefully things will become clearer once we actually get into it! But we are trying to look at the biblical models of marriage and try to have an understanding of Christian marriage before we go into it to try and build a firm foundation. But I appreciate that it is probably one of those things that you need to be in to understand!

I guess like many issues - it will be an evolving struggle to discern God's will for our marriage. (It does seem to be for everything else!)
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
Proverbs 31 v16
[The Good Wife] considers a field and buys it
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

If the church through out the ages had taken more notice of that verse, women would have had better property rights and there would have been no objection to wives working and owning their own business.

So by emphasising the verse about submissiveness above the one above parts of the hierachchy have shown their own aggenda.
 

---

Posted by Kerry (# 202) on :
 
There seem to be a few basic themes to the arguments being expressed here.
1) That we should ignore what we don't like in the Bible.
2) That we should accept wholesale what we don't like in the Bible.
3) That we should use the revelatory authority of our own marriage experience, and that of our friends, as a reason for making the choice.
4) That we should emphasise the cultural differentness of the Bible, and use reason and discernment as a way of making our own - Biblically guided - choice.

Guys, I'm delighted you have such happy marriages, but I personally think personal experience should be used as an argumentative illustration rather than a proving point. I'm surprised that some people are able to do either 1 or 2 with the Bible. Perhaps they don't, actually, but that's what we're accusing them of.
Anyway, I'm for four.
 

---

Posted by GreenLeaf (# 1719) on :
 
Okay, this quote comes from way back in the thread, but there is something that hasn't yet been mentioned in the discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Birdie:

I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility.

---

What Birdie described is a practical way of dealing with "headship" in terms of who has the final call on a particular issue. It's not wrong and can help it out if ever there is a stalemate (i too, pray that never be so in my marriage).

However, regardless who makes the final decision, someday, at the judgement seat of Christ (see 2 Cor. 5:8-11), the husband will give an account of how he led his family. We know this will occur because of the way God has set up the chain of responsibility in Ephesians 2, making the husband the head of the wife.

Now for the scary part - this accountability includes includes the decisions which the husband had the "casting vote" as well as those he trusted his wife to make. Although SnowWhite's fiancé doesn't really like the idea of headship, he will still be ultimately responsible for it before God. It's not just the husband's responsibility when he gets in wrong, but when he gets it right, and when he does nothing at all. There's no getting out of that.

That sure made my husband and I wake up to his role in our household and to mine to help him do God's will for us in every way possible. I can't imagine causing my husband to have to answer for my mistakes. As I said, scary, very scary.
 

---

Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on :
 
Does anyone know any good literature on the subject?

(other than the Bible, of course! )
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Birdie, thank you for your excellent post. I agree with you completely, especially the part about a model for a partnership.

RuthW, I have great respect for the capabilities of women (married or single). You have no idea how much I lean on my wife. Don't get the idea that she just goes along with whatever dumb idea falls out of my mouth, either. But at the end of the day, she looks to me for leadership and I look to her for support. We need each other.

Imagine a General has sent two Privates on an important mission. As they are leaving, the General points to one of the Privates and says, "By the way, I'm puting you in charge. You will answer to me personally for whatever happens on this mission." Who has the easier job? Who is more capable? (I can't tell.)

scot
 

---

Posted by GreenLeaf (# 1719) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snow White:
Does anyone know any good literature on the subject?

(other than the Bible, of course! )

---

Thanks for mentioning that , I meant to indicate that I garnered a few of the ideas for my post from this book:

Sorenson, David. Have a Heavenly Marriage. Sword of the Lord publishers. 2000. ISBN 0-87398-395-5.

I would say this was the most sensible, bible-based teaching that I have read about marriage. You can get it from http://www.swordofthelord.com/description.asp?item=PB3955.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I am concerned about the people who say 'Oh you don't need to take any notice of the bible verse which says you must wear hats in church, or women mustn't speak in church, because that's cultural. But you must take notice of the husband being head of the wife because that is the word of God for all time'. It is actually very difficult to discern what is culturally bound and therefore open to revision in the 21st century. As with all uncertain issues we are bound to disagree with each other over it. But never can any of us say, 'I am living by what it says in the bible but you're not'. It is not as simple as that.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Snow White, I am glad you are doing some soul searching on this topic. It is rather uncomfortable. I was almost engaged to a man and that is how I studied up on this topic (unfortunately he was rather too gung ho about the submission type and not seemingly aware of the luuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv part, the sacrificial luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv part [insert Barry White here singing "Never gonna Give you Up"].

The Proverbs 31 woman ran her household. She got up at the crack of dawn to make breakfast and get the duty rouster ready to tell her servants what to do. She spent all day making sure everything in the household went smoothly. She does "She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant", but that is not all she does. She is a domestic goddess, a bibical Martha Stewart. She is not hanging out in the town, away from her household everyday. She also speaks with kindness and wisdom...she is what every single man looks for at my church, but they would like her to look like a fully clothe Britney Spears probably (modestly dressed of course).

Anyway, I must go off to another family thing.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
what I want to clarify:

Yes, she obviously went into town but did not spend her whole day and night there. (When would she have time to cook for everyone and make their clothes if she hung out in town all day long?)
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Well said, Chorister.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Although this drifts into Kerygmania I have to argue that submission is also for husbands. Ephesians 5:21 says submit to one another that can only mean husbands submit to their wifes. It doesn't say husband are excluded from this command.

Part of the problem is the the NIV puts a title above verse 22 which separates it from the previous one. Then of course the NIV translaters are all from a conservative background.

In my opinion submission and love are opposite sides of the same coin.

*Nightlamp vanishes in a burst of sulpher*
 

---

Posted by Arietty (# 45) on :
 
As I recall, the meaning of the word 'head' in the Ephesians passage equates to 'origin' - i.e. the source of a river. Man is 'head' (source) as Eve was structured from Adam's rib.

There was a fashion a few years ago in some circles to say that all-female groups in churches (like a women's bible study) had to have a man on the committee to be the 'head'.

Strangely, I never heard an example of a church saying that a Men's Breakfasts (for example) had to have a female member to be the 'body'.

Paul's injunction both preserves the status quo AND is revolutionary. Slaves, obey your master (as is expected) BUT - MASTERS......... Children, obey your parents (as is expected) BUT - PARENTS........... Wives, obey your husvands (as is expected),BUT - HUSBANDS.....

In each case, those with the 'secular' power over others are being challenged to adopt Kingdom values, not act according to current mores.

I has a big hang up about this when I became a Christian, I have thought a lot about it.

Ultimately, I agree with whoever said it is a cop-out. If I robbed a shop then said 'I am a Christian, my husband told me to do it, I have to obey him ', it would not be a defence.
 

---

Posted by Aardvark (# 2295) on :
 
In our church there are many women whose husbands are not Christians, although they appear to have happy and strong marriages. They come to church week after week with their children, are fully involved in the life of the church and are committed to doing what God wants. Who is the spiritual head of their family and how does the gospel of submission apply to them?
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
That's fascinating Arietty.

And another illustration of how ancient theories about biology have underpinned this sort of thinking about women.

I'm reminded about the exercise where a teacher separated her class into blue eyed children and brown eyed children for a day and gave each a turn of being the favoured group in order to teach them about the nature of prejudice.

The distinction was based on one group falsely being declared superior by biology and thus put in charge of the other - but the realities it brought home for the participants were very uncomfortable!

There is no discernable difference in the general decision making competence of men and women, but for hundreds of years our society has acted as if there was and the result has been a very real disadvantaging of women which has only seriously been addressed in the past century or so.

Much of this disadvantaging of women was justified from the Bible using these sort of verses and models.

Now if people decide that they want to run their lives that way and that it is meaningful for them, then that's their right.

I realise that, like most models of living, that if people find it meaningful for them and they behave lovingly to each other, that it can work for them.

But I want to say that because of the kind of view of women this encourages and historically has encouraged, that it is something I find deeply disturbing. I find it more disturbing because it is derived from biological notions and concepts which have proved demonstrably false.

For me, it's like finding people willing to argue that black people should go back into slavery - to listen to people seriously arguing that women should re-embrace this sort of second class status on marriage.

( I can't find a smilie for hair standing on end)

When it come to decisions, we can all make good ones and we can all make crap ones. I think a good guide is make sure that the giving in is not all on one side or out of proportion.

cheers,
Louise
 

---

Posted by Arietty (# 45) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snow White:
The funny thing is that it is me arguing for headship and my fiance arguing against!!

---

Well that's easy then.

You accept his decision not to be the head.

Locust Eater has stated St Paul never married - is this true? I had the impression he was married. In fact I have read one bible commentary which stated the thorn in Paul's flesh was his nagging wife (Now I need that hair-on-end smilie, Louise - can you pull any strings to get one?

Peter certainly was married, as it is on record that he had a mother in law. I guess once his wife had 'submitted' to him going off with Jesus she got used to being the head of the family while he pursued his ministry.

If we are going to look to the Bible for gender roles I would have thought we needed to look at how women are portrayed. There is no scriptural account of Mary submitting to anyone other than God is there - she even insisted on Jesus performing the miracle at Cana after he had said the time wasn't right!
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark:
In our church there are many women whose husbands are not Christians, although they appear to have happy and strong marriages. They come to church week after week with their children, are fully involved in the life of the church and are committed to doing what God wants. Who is the spiritual head of their family and how does the gospel of submission apply to them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arietty:
Peter certainly was married, as it is on record that he had a mother in law. I guess once his wife had 'submitted' to him going off with Jesus she got used to being the head of the family while he pursued his ministry.

---

quote:

---

Chapter 8. 1After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Birdy:
I lived (very very happily) on my own for several years before I got married. The husband has lived on his own too and, if anything, I was better at it than he was, in terms of organising my life, making decisions, etc etc. However I don't think the argument for headship/submission implies that women need husbands to exercise headship because the women can’t make decisions for themselves. I think it is a model of making a partnership work, which is very different to living on your own and not having to refer to anyone else about the way you live your life.

---

quote:

---

The kicker is "women without a head". Women like me who are single and whose fathers don't know Christ...we are "women without heads".

---

quote:

---

If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:

quote:

---

If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.

---

Neither will this quote endear you to people who study the word earnestly seeking God's guidance on how to live but who do not see the scriptures as inerrant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
You mentioned before that your father is an errantist ie. he is a Christian who does not believe all parts of the bible to be literal truth. Have I understood that correctly? And in other words are you saying that people who are not inerrantists don't know Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Please note that those of us who have adopted this model in our marriages have all said that it has never come to the point of being invoked, and that we hope it never will.

(......) If my wife and I are mindful of the roles we have accepted, we stay more concerned with practicing sacrificial love than with exerting our rights or demonstrating our independence. Again, it works in our house, YMMV.

scot

---

quote:

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess that most errantists see Ephesians 5 as a passage that is in error

---

quote:

---

If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.

---

quote:

---

I meant to say in a nutshell: if you are an inerrantist, you study the Word and figure out how to apply your life to it...rather than try to fit in only the parts you chose (like taking only what you want to eat from a cafeteria and leaving the rest).

---

quote:

---

As an inerrantist, I don't believe the Bible is just a book with some nice stories that I might get something out of. That is why I take the time to try to study more in depth and not just see what fits into my life, and throw out the rest since I don't care for it. If somebody choses to do opposite, it is their progative, but hopefully recongise that that is what they are doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
First of all, it is like you are licking your chops hoping I will put my big ol' foot in trap you set forth

---

Not at all... I'm just inviting you to be persecuted for your faith (Mt5:11).
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
duchess, do you seriously think those of us who don't think the Bible is inerrant believe that it is "just a book with some nice stories that [you/we/anyone] might get something out of"? Because this is a serious misrepresentation of our position.

Scot, I meant no disrespect to the way you have arranged your marriage, or to the way others have either. But I do really wonder what it says about women in general if married women are to submit to their husbands, especially considering how many single women are doing just fine without husbands exercising headship or leadership or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:


For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. - Matthew 12:40

If you believe that Jonah is just a story...didn't happen, then Jesus must have not been dead for 3 days and nights before His resurrection, according to this belief.

---

I think that this likely belongs on another thread, so I won't go into detail. However, I think that there are many ways to interpret the Jonah story.

For example how would you interpet: "For as Santa delivers presents to all good children on Christmas eve, so will Steve offer presents to all the chidren in his community." Does the fact that Santa never exist affect what Steve does?

This is a totally non-religious example and I don't want to compare Jonah and Santa or Jesus and Steve. The issue is how you interpret a sentence.

I also want to ad that I have every respect for your interpretation. The complaint I think some people have is how you categorize those who do not think like you.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
So my joke was treated with disdain ; no one understands me.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hagar:
The complaint I think some people have is how you categorize those who do not think like you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
So my joke was treated with disdain ; no one understands me.

---

I enjoyed it, Nightlamp.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Ruth, what exactly did I say that I should apologize for?

I think you are reading into what I have written.

I never said that all errantists don't know Christ. I even said that basically I am puzzled by errantists but it is up to God who is saved and who is not, not me and that I don't know what is in people's hearts, I can only see fruit in someone's life and make a judgement (like in my dad's case) but who knows if I am right or wrong.

I explained that my father is an example in my life. I did not go into dee[ detail on other errantists who talk about Christ and so forth. Those are the ones that puzzle me. I am sure you are puzzled by me too. If that is a bad thing, I am sorry. I don't understand your position since you refuse to give any examples of it.

If you feel my statement "the bibles is basically a good bunch of stories that we can learn from" is offensive, then I am sorry to have offended you with a blanket statment. I am quoting my dad (and others in my family). If that is not the way you feel and you do not wish to explain yourself and show me why I am wrong, so be it.

I will not come back into this particular thread since it seems to me you are just lashing out at me like a power puff girl on and I am mojo jojo. This is a pretty sensitive subject and if I knew it would offend you so much, I probably would not have brought it up. Believe it or not, it is not my aim to offend you deeply, it was my motive to make you THINK. Again, you are not interested in defending your position...you just want me to apologize for the way I presented mine, and I have, as you wish.

If you wish to converse further, please e-mail me. I would honestly be glad for a little education on the subject. I am also sorry if I came across sarcastic, I must have taken must frustration with my dad's point of view out on you.

This thread is getting off onto a tangent which is somewhat my fault and I do not wish it to end up in Hell (unless Snow White would like it to which I doubt).
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
duchess, I quoted above the three statements to which I object.

quote:

---

If you feel my statement "the bibles is basically a good bunch of stories that we can learn from" is offensive, then I am sorry to have offended you with a blanket statment. I am quoting my dad (and others in my family). If that is not the way you feel and you do not wish to explain yourself and show me why I am wrong, so be it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
So my joke was treated with disdain ; no one understands me.

---

I enjoyed it, Nightlamp.

---

Yes, the old ones are the best ones!
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arietty:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Please note that those of us who have adopted this model in our marriages have all said that it has never come to the point of being invoked, and that we hope it never will.

(......) If my wife and I are mindful of the roles we have accepted, we stay more concerned with practicing sacrificial love than with exerting our rights or demonstrating our independence. Again, it works in our house, YMMV.

scot

---

I really don't want to pry into how other people's relationships work, but could someone give a theoretical example of how this works? If it 'never comes to the point of being invoked' - erm - how do you know it is actually there?

---

I've been reading this thread with interest, and have hesitated long and hard before posting this. I can give you a real example of how it worked in practice for us (I don't think a theoretical one would be easy to think up, or particularly enlightening).

Our first child suffered from 'interuterine growth retardation syndrome' i.e. she didn't grow at anything like the normal rate in the womb. I went into hospital, rested etc. and was prepared to have a pre-term delivery at 32 weeks, when the baby would have a 50/50 chance of survival. Unfortuately, at 30 weeks, the baby showed signs of serious distress, and we were told that if she were not delivered that day, she would probably die in the womb. At that time she weighed 640g and was very immature.

I said I did not want her delivered, preferring to 'let nature take its course'. I thought she was too immature to have a good chance of survival, and that in all likelihood she would eiher die or be seriously handicapped.

My husband felt strongly that we should have her delivered and given every possible chance of survival.

We prayed, we talked about it, we cried about it. But we could not agree. So I did exactly what I said I would do in my marriage vows; I obeyed him. Our daughter was delivered alive, and lived for 15 weeks. But she was never able to leave the Special Care Baby Unit, and remained on a ventilator throughout.

This is the only time we have needed to resort to the 'headship' clause, I sincerely hope we won't have to make that kind of decision again. I don't resent the fact that my husband made the final decision, nor do I think he was wrong. If she had died in the womb, it might have been easier on her, but I might have felt guilty all my life for not giving her that chance. I have never doubted that my husband was trying to make the best decision for me as well as himself and the baby, and, most importantly, that he would live with the consequences of that decision for himself - he wouldn't have run off and left me to bring up a handicapped child on my own, for example.

I am glad to say that we now have two healthy sons, both born at full term, and without any difficult decisions needing to be made!

I don't know if this takes the debate forward at all, but it is at least a real scenario in which a time-limited decision, which can't be made by 'tossing a coin', is necessary. It is also worth noting that the decision was legally mine to make - I am a competent adult, and could have refused consent to a caesarean section had I wanted.
 

---

Posted by Snow White (# 2390) on :
 
Moth, thank you so much for posting your story. It was very moving and was a brilliant example of a real-life application of this concept. It certainly does help to have issues like headship/submission grounded in concrete examples.

Duchess, thank you also for your comments - they have been very helpful and I am aware that you seem to be one of the only post-ers fighting for your particular corner.

And thank you loads to everyone else!

I am being really challenged by this thread and I am very pleased I put my head above the "newbie" parapet and started it! Sorry I haven't posted much in the last few days but have been snowed under with work I, for one, greatly appreciate everyone's views as it helps me try to tease out what I actually think about this issue! (Not there yet! )

Frin - I'm not sure I want to try to make my partner accept the headship role (I'm not sure I could if I wanted too! ) but I am aware of the Biblical role models and want to attempt to have a Biblical based marriage - as does he. (Although what that actual means I'm not sure yet!)

I think some serious Bible study is in order (for Snow White and Mr-Snow White-to-be) as well as looking at that book that was mentioned!
 

---

Posted by Birdie (# 2173) on :
 
Wow. Thank you, Moth, for posting that.

After re-reading this thread I think that the conclusion I am coming to is that this is an issue which can be abused either way. At the beginning of the thread, people warned Snow White to be very wary of anyone demanding her submission, implying that there is a risk that the husband's position of 'headship' may be abused and used to dominate and control. Later, people point out the risks of the abuse of 'submission', and the danger that a wife might use her commitment to submit to abdicate all responsibility for decision making etc.

So it seems to me there is an issue of balance here, as in so many things. And I wholeheartedly acknowledge that there is potential of either of the abuses described above. However I repeat what I said earlier, that just because a principle is open to abuse, that doesn't mean we should abandon it entirely.

All I can really say is that I think some of the posters on this thread have demonstrated that this can work. If both partners are committed to their roles and have an understanding of the implications of those roles, then this is far from a recipe for avoiding "the hard work of finding a compromise both partners can live with". Moth's story demonstrates an occasion where there could be no compromise, and it is only in situations like this that I can imagine the 'headship clause' (I don't like that phrase but it's been used previously so I'll stick with it!) being invoked.

I said at the beginning of this thread that we've only been married 10 months - so I am speaking from hardly any experience! But having read some of the other posters on this thread who have embraced the same model for their marriages, I have to say that I remain of the opinion that this is a reasonable and workable model for a healthy and loving partnership.

Snow White - all the best! I hope that this has all helped .

bird
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Moth, thank you.

scot
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
It's interesting to read this thread and see how the headship in a modern context seems to have become sort of a 'nuclear option' in marriage - something you invoke in a heart-rendingly desperate case of last resort or never at all.

That in itself is a significant modern cultural innovation, and very different from the way in which this belief has been traditionally practised in western culture.

I think it's worth a bit of a historical re-cap here.

The belief in male headship/female submission in marriage was, until relatively recently (historically speaking), used to justify stuff like

• women being unable to instigate divorce proceedings
• the impossibility of rape within marriage - the wife being held to have given her consent and to be bound to obey
• married women being non persons in law with almost no rights
• divorced women being barred from custody and access to their children who belonged to the 'head' of the family - the husband
• women who wanted an education when their husband didn't want them to have one, being expected to shut up and give up any hopes of a job or education
• married women being considered unfit to vote

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
The ancient world was intensely hierarchical in ways which we would regard as abusive today.
...We therefore have the same good grounds for saying that women should not submit to their husbands that we have for saying that slaves should not submit to their masters.

There are no grounds for slavery and there are similarly no grounds for female submission.

---

quote:

---

To name a few of the past applications of that principle.
Nowadays if a woman chooses to take this approach to marriage (and note the word 'chooses'), she exposes herself to few of the hazards which women of earlier generations faced. They, of course, didn't have a choice at all - they had no other models of marriage to appeal to.

If 'headship' turns nasty - today's woman has rights - she can seek a divorce, she can seek custody of her children, she can go to law without her husbands consent and seek an education or a job.

She has those rights and protections because of generations of women (and men) who rejected this concept and fought to strip its most pernicious effects from the statute book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

The belief in male headship/female submission in marriage was, until relatively recently (historically speaking), used to justify stuff like

• the impossibility of rape within marriage - the wife being held to have given her consent and to be bound to obey
• married women being non persons in law with almost no rights
• divorced women being barred from custody and access to their children who belonged to the 'head' of the family - the husband
• women who wanted an education when their husband didn't want them to have one, being expected to shut up and give up any hopes of a job or education
• married women being considered unfit to vote

To name a few of the past applications of that principle.
Nowadays if a woman chooses to take this approach to marriage (and note the word 'chooses'), she exposes herself to few of the hazards which women of earlier generations faced. They, of course, didn't have a choice at all - they had no other models of marriage to appeal to.
If 'headship' turns nasty - today's woman has rights - she can seek a divorce, she can seek custody of her children, she can go to law without her husbands consent and seek an education or a job.

She has those rights and protections because of generations of women (and men) who rejected this concept and fought to strip its most pernicious effects from the statute book.

I suspect that the kinder gentler 'last resort' approach to the concept, seen on this thread has a great deal to do with recent improvements in the status of women which have made actually subjugating people on the basis of gender increasingly unacceptable.

So ironically, even if you argue that the concept is not culturally dependent and still valid for us, you probably still end up with a version of it which is very heavily influenced by modern cultural practices and beliefs about the rights of women.

Louise

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
Louise, I couldn't agree more. Whilst I gave my example above as a situation in which someone has to make a decision, and I accepted my huband's moral right to do so, I would be deeply unhappy at a return to a legal superiority of the husband over the wife.

......

How far the law ought to reflect Christian beliefs is probably a subject for another thread.

---

Moth,

I thank you for providing one of the very very few situations in which there really has to be a decision made, and quickly, and there isn't any compromise position. And for having the courage to post it.

Louise and you make an excellent point. To wit: we (women) have the luxury of choosing to submit in the event of an unbreakable tie. Largely because of the efforts of those who have broken free, which lends such a choice a certain irony. But it also means that the choice to submit is a much more meaningful one, since it is a free-will-based choice (at least for those posting here).

This is why it is very important for the government to get out of the business of making rules about who does what in marriage. This leaves couples free to decide the model of marriage and child-rearing they will follow.

Although my husband and I have rejected such a model for our own marriage, I think that many people tacitly have a submission-deal, and I admire those willing to go on the record for it. For us, in practice, the way it works is that there are circumstances where one or the other is a better judge of what is the best to do, or one or the other felt more strongly about the best solution to a problem. In that case, one partner defers to the other. So there is no one head, there are two, with shifting responsibilities, depending on the dispute. Of which there are happily, not many. So when a judgment call had to be made about which church to join, and it was a real toss-up, with many arguments on each side, I made it, because I felt strongly about raising the kids in the Episcopal church (and not with the Methodists ). But when we had to decide whether to go with public or private school for the kids, I bowed to his strong preference for public, and his principled argument in favor of diversity and democratic values.

As to what the Bible says about it, I think it's impossible to read Paul without taking into consideration why he said what he was saying. That doesn't mean that I find all Pauline teaching re: women to be codswallop (though I may say so after a glass or two of wine), but that God gave me a brain and I like to use it when I read the Bible, and see it not as a collection of diverting moral tales, but as the written expression of the Word through fallible men and women. Surely there's something in between "it's all literally true" and "it's all a quaint metaphor".

[ 15 July 2002, 21:45: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
see, now, as i see it, the problem with this "husband casts the deciding vote" idea is this. theres only two parties in the marriage. so if whenever theres a disagreement the husband casts the deciding vote, then what your really saying is that whatever he wants goes.

uh uh. no way.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
see, now, as i see it, the problem with this "husband casts the deciding vote" idea is this. theres only two parties in the marriage. so if whenever theres a disagreement the husband casts the deciding vote, then what your really saying is that whatever he wants goes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
The headship of the husband is a headship of self-sacrifice and leading by example, not of huffy demands for obeisance
Reader Alexis

---

I like the way you put thing, MT!

I broke it off with a man a few years ago whom
"huffy demands for obeisance" could have been
his mantra. He was stuck on the idea of "submission" in Eph. 5 and not down with the
idea of "sacrificial lovin'" so we both new it
was time to move on. He got engaged right away to someone else and I still pray for her when I think of the tyranny she must be going through.


[UBB fixed]

[ 16 July 2002, 22:06: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
mousethief, that is of course the point i'm making. this "husband casts the deciding vote" thing is a tyranny. the only question is, is the fist in the velvet glove, or not?
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
see, now, as i see it, the problem with this "husband casts the deciding vote" idea is this. theres only two parties in the marriage. so if whenever theres a disagreement the husband casts the deciding vote, then what your really saying is that whatever he wants goes.

uh uh. no way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
sharkshooter, see my post above. in the case you are describing, the hand is in the velvet glove. but it is still the husband making the decisions.

unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

I see it very differently. The "deciding vote" is an incredibly heavy burden to bear.

---

"Headship" - as you define - it still sounds more like parenting, than partnership, to me.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Perhaps some first principles would help here -- do those of you who do not believe in the husband's headship also disbelieve in non-democratic hierarchy in general?

David
believes in non-democratic hierarchy, to everyone's astonishment
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
gracia, thank you, you summed up perfectly something i was trying to express, but couldn't think of a way to phrase.

sharkshooter, of course not. its just plain wrong for one person to always be making the decisions for another person, unless that person is incompetant in some way.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
nicolemrw:

Thank you. However, it might be useful to try to find out how often, in a long-term marriage, it actually comes down to that. Probably not very often.

It is not, in my view, a way of deciding where to go for dinner, or what type of car to buy. Those matters should be decided without resort to a deciding vote - as a partnership.

It is only tyranny if there is no love.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
I am surrounded in the workplace by married women in leadership roles - do their capabilities for showing leadership somehow desert them when they get home? Do their abilities somehow become immoral when they get home?

If I went to work for an organisation and they told me leadership could only be provided by men who were 'obligated' to provide leadership, (and to lead nicely and lovingly) and that as a woman I would be allowed to be 'involved' in decision making. I know where I'd tell them to go!

On the other hand, if they said that managers of either sex should provide leadership, treating their employees with consideration and involving them in decision making - I'd think that was a good thing.

What comes to my mind is the thinking of the British Empire. As the Empire became a bit more enlightened they(eventually) let the educated 'natives' share in the decision making but it wasn't appropriate for a 'native' to show leadership - that was 'getting ideas above their station'. Leadership was something for the white man. Unsurprisingly the 'natives' didn't buy this.

Essentially the idea that men are there to show leadership - however nicely - is paternalistic, however you dress it up, and based on a sexual stereotype.

It is there because the Bible was written in a deeply sexist society with an extremely flawed view of women, which believed leadership was quite inappropriate to women who would naturally become tyrants, if given any real power. Hence they needed the husband as a head to keep them in check.

Just because an unfounded sexual stereotype is in the Bible doesn't give it any basis in reality and doesn't make it right. At least not as a far as I'm concerned.

Louise
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 

quote:

---

It is only tyranny if there is no love.

---

quote:

---

do those of you who do not believe in the husband's headship also disbelieve in non-democratic hierarchy in general?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
How about the person who's being asked to submit?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
How about the person who's being asked to submit?

---

And finally - at the end of the long, long day - we all agree?

scot

---

Yes for me, in the last analysis, it boils down to choice and consent. I don't agree personally but I'll uphold someone else's choice to make a different decision for themselves. However differently I think about it!

L.
 

---

Posted by Arietty (# 45) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
What's very interesting about this thread is that no matter how many times people explain how their marriages work, and what the whole "submit" thing boils down to, the anti-submit faction insists that it doesn't mean what those people say it does, and that it's tyrannous and evil.

---

quote:

---

You appeared to be discussing adults in general. Do you mean then that this applies only to marriage, and the judiciary, officers in the armed forces and employers (who all could be argued to meet this criterion) are entitled to act as they like? Why is marriage a special case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
and one based on an arbitrary factor of someone's genetic makeup

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Would I agree to abort a healthy foetus if my husband ordered me to? Would I commit murder? Would I jump off a cliff?

---

quote:

---

Just for the record, I did promise to obey my husband (after making it clear that this was a conditional promise and that my duty to God would come before my duty to him, if he ever got above himself and started ordering me to chop people's heads off).

---

quote:

---

But I do believe in that, at least in the form of hereditary monarchy. Certainly I have no problem with it at all.

---

Each to their own, Chast! But having studied the Stuart dynasty - let me tell you I think they are a great argument against that (oh dear, that'll probably start a flame war about Charles, King and Martyr!)

Mousethief,

quote:

---

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but why would a woman want to marry a man she is not willing to submit to?

---

quote:

---

In other words, if she really thinks that, unless she is constantly vigilant to protect her own best interests, he will act in ways antithetical to them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Let me rephrase that - why would a man marry a woman he is not willing to submit to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
The question as I see it is why should leadership be a quality exercised by men, and not by men and women jointly, deferring to each other as might be appropriate in any given situation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

In other words, if she really thinks that, unless she is constantly vigilant to protect her own best interests, he will act in ways antithetical to them?

---

To follow up Arietty - this looks like yet another straw man, nobody has mentioned or implied this view except yourself!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but why would a woman want to marry a man she is not willing to submit to?

---

quote:

---

I can, at this moment, think of at least 7 people that I trust that much. Each one of them is fallible, but not more so than I am. Each one of them I would trust with my life.

---

so go and submit to them, sharkshooter, am i stopping you? oh, but it wasn't you submitting we were talking about, was it?
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I'll jump in here again just to give an example (regarding Frin's last post)...

My pastor is a fine pastor when it comes to shepherding his flock, but stinks at managing his own household funds (he has said so much publically). His financially-smart wife handles the finances in that household (balances the checkbook...delegates the funds...). He is still
head of that household.

To me, it ain't about a man sitting in a chair, ordering people around "Go get me a beer!" or doing everything, on the contrary, there is delegation of duties. It is about him giving kind and loving guidance to his wife and kids, shepherding them, if you will, in accordance to God's Word and His will for that family.

I myself have not found such a man in San Jose...but if I do, I will stalk him and hunt him down since he seems to be such a scarce and rare commodity here.

<--Titus 1 man running in fear from duchess in San Jose...
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Let me rephrase that - why would a man marry a woman he is not willing to submit to?

---

I wouldn't. I didn't. St. Paul tells us to "submit to one another" and if you don't trust a person enough to submit to them, don't marry 'em. They needn't be perfect (now THERE is a red herring). Just trustworthy, eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
The question as I see it is why should leadership be a quality exercised by men, and not by men and women jointly, deferring to each other as might be appropriate in any given situation?

---

I believe if you'll read the first posts in this thread by the headshipists (to coin a term) you will find that this is exactly what they aver happens in their marriages.

Reader Alexis

---

'submit to one another' is kind of my point in what I said there -

What I'm asking is, is there an expectation that one partner should submit more than the other on grounds of their sex?

The impression I got from reading the headship posts was that the posters might defer to the other partner on many occasions, but that the man was the person supposed to give the lead and that in the event of a tie about something important the woman was supposed to give in.

I simply can't see how sex should determine who gives the lead and who should submit in the event of a 'tie'.

If you are saying sex makes no general difference as to who should show leadership or make decisions in a marriage then fine - we have no area of disagreement.

What has been pointed out repeatedly is that the concept of headship per se has been (in the past and in some cases today) abused and abused and abused against women and tied to negative stereotypes regarding a female inabilility to lead and the inadvisability of allowing women to make decisions or do responsible things.

Should we be 'constantly vigilant' against negative stereotypes which say leadership is a masculine thing not appropriate to women and that women should be the ones to give in in a stand off, just because they are women? - you betcha!

The historical results of such stereotyping have been frightening.

Saying that it's wrong to perpetuate negative stereotypes that leadership is somehow a male thing is not the same thing as saying that a woman should not trust a man in a marriage and should constantly be vigilant to protect her own best interests.

Louise
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
But having studied the Stuart dynasty - let me tell you I think they are a great argument against that (oh dear, that'll probably start a flame war about Charles, King and Martyr!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
To me, it ain't about a man sitting in a chair, ordering people around "Go get me a beer!" or doing everything, on the contrary, there is delegation of duties. It is about him giving kind and loving guidance to his wife and kids, shepherding them, if you will, in accordance to God's Word and His will for that family.

---

Because only those with a dick are capable of giving the kind and loving guidance to their spouse and children? Only those with balls can shepherd adequately?

Viki, who thinks that's a load of balls!
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Girl, you know what I believe since this thread is peppered with my comments.
 

---

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
In my understanding of the “rule of law” the whole concept of “lawful authority” rests on the “consent of the governed”.

It sounds to me like we all agree that if a woman consents to the "headship" of her husband, the concept is valid and to be respected, since all parties to the transaction are in agreement.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracia:
It sounds to me like we all agree that if a woman consents to the "headship" of her husband, the concept is valid and to be respected, since all parties to the transaction are in agreement.

---

quote:

---

Or where the husband opposes medical treatment on religious grounds and the wife "submits", and the child doesn't get her antibiotics, and so suffers more or even dies.

---

My parents split up over this very issue- instead of "submitting", my mom left, got my sister the antibiotics she needed, and served dad the divorce papers.

No lie.

So far as I can tell from reading all these posts the "pro-heads" seem to be advocating a headship-which-is-not: it isn't a headship in any real sense, because it turns out that, as Mousethief said above, both parties end up "submitting" to each other. Which might be headship in name but it is not headship in fact.

My wife and I wrote our own vows, because we couldn't stomach that "obediance" crap. We vowed, amongst other things, to be committed to each other's emotional and spiritual health and wholeness. Neither of us is in charge. I have no interest in a woman who obeys me. The thing that made me realize my wife was THE ONE was that she was unafraid to call me out on my mistakes and idiocies and jerk behavior-- i.e., that she would and could challenge me.

She continues to do so, and I am a better man for it.

-le
 

---

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Well, I got married in Wales, where the 'obey' bit hasn't been in the marriage service for years. So no problem!
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
I have found this thread to be very thought-provoking. It has lead to prolonged discussions between Mr Moth and I about whether I do actually submit to him, if he is the head of the family (and if so what this means) and whether such a model can actually be defended in modern society.

I did promise to obey, as I've made clear in earlier posts. And I have been the only woman on this thread to admit to having submitted, albeit in an extreme and unusual circumstance. That is the only time I can remember the concept of submission crossing my mind until this thread started up. I can also see that my decision then could equally well have been based on the fact that I was naturally very upset at the time, was suspicious of my own motives in refusing a caesarean section, and would in any case lean heavily on the advice of someone I love dearly in reaching such a decision. In other words, it may not be very different from the examples given by those who oppose the idea of headship in marriage.

I don't think I'd go to the stake on the notion of the husband as head. But I do strongly defend the 'one flesh' principle of marriage, and the idea of sacrificial love. Unless a man is prepared to leave his father and mother (and his single life in general) and cleave to his wife, and she is prepared to put their needs as a couple before hers as an individual, then the marriage is very likely to fail. This is a deeply unfashionable view in our modern, self-fulfillment society, but I do really believe it to be true.

As for day to day decisions and leadership, only a fool would not leave those to the member of the family best equipped to make them. I reckon I make most of them in our household. I am also quite capable of telling my husband he's wrong, and could not possibly have married a man who wanted me to agree with him on everything. And in fairness to Mr Moth, he wouldn't have married me either if I had been inclined to agree with whatever he thought!

I have no experience of being married to the kind of idiot who would refuse a child antibiotics, so can't say what I'd do about that. But I suspect it would be to tell him the truth in love...

So where does this leave me? Well, I still think there is value in the description of marriage given in Ephesians 5. I do not think men are, in general, better leaders than women, and I am not oppressed by my husband. But within my own marriage, we do sort of practise the headship model, in that my husband feels that he bears the ultimate responsibility for the family before God.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I am quite impressed that this thread has made it through three pages!

Way to go.

Fundamentally, I would like to opine that Paul was mistaken when he said:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church." Ephesians 5.22

The reason that this is mistaken is that, although Christ is sometimes said to represent a Bridegroom (Matthew 25.1-13) or a Husband (Revelation 21.9), this representation does not carry over into human relationships. That is, even though the relationship between God and the human race is frequently likened in Scripture to the relationship between a husband (God) and wife (humanity or the church)(i.e. Hosea 2), this does NOT mean that a husband represents God in a marriage.

What Paul misunderstood was the fact that since a husband and a wife together make up the "bride and wife of the Lamb", neither one can be said to take the part of the Lamb (curious imagery for headship in any case!). A husband is "the bride" no less than his wife.

I do agree, however, that since husbands and wives have differentiated roles in a marriage, there is an aspect of shared leadership - each taking leadership in different ways. I have read many comments like this above.
 

---

Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
Thanks Freddy,
I agree with everything you wrote there, but i lack the Biblical imagery to put it that way.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I will say that threads like this are good for making us all think things out and learn a little bit more, even if we so very much disagree with each other.

I especially like the reminder (and perhaps exhortation since I myself need it) that Jesus Himself washed His Disciples feet, that serving someone is the greatest way to glorified Christ.

I will also something that upset a Sunday morning Class in church once that I said:

"A woman's role in marriage, submission, is a walk in the park compared to men having to love her as Christ loves the church". Me this single women saying that out loud drew some protests from the married women and chuckles from the married men. They did set me straight, and I am eternally grateful, that it is "NOT a cake walk".

[tongue in cheek blurb start]A lady told me that in Gen. 2, God knew men liked to kick back and just have fun, so he made them go against their natural inclination to do (watch sports, drink beer) that and "toil all their days". Women though enjoy controlling everything, so God made them have to submit, also against their natural inclination.[/tongue in cheek blurb over].

Marriage is a beautiful symbol of Christ in his church. It is a mystery that I guess we will not fully understand until we are all other side the "dark glass".
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by locust-eater:
[QUOTE]So far as I can tell from reading all these posts the "pro-heads" seem to be advocating a headship-which-is-not: it isn't a headship in any real sense . . . headship in name but it is not headship in fact.

---

I'm not!

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
... I said:

"A woman's role in marriage, submission, is a walk in the park compared to men having to love her as Christ loves the church". ... it is "NOT a cake walk".

---

But I'm tempted to think that it ought to be. If I can (oh dear, here he goes again. Will this be short? Yes. Thanks, carry on) draw from my own experience in hierarchical relationships, being obedient to someone that you trust is vastly easier than being the "paternal authority-figure" -- if you do it right. As I say (somewhere, I'm sure, and if I didn't before, I'm saying it now) over on The Leather Thread, being the one in charge is not, or should not be, all about being able to sit back and let someone else do all the work and be treated like a king; it's about helping the other person in ways that only someone in authority can. I will also say that it does need to be a two-way street even when very real authority is present; I ventured out, as the authority-figure, really for the first time, in recent months, and it nearly burnt me out. Being the subordinate one was vastly easier, at least for me. But both parties have to try to make it work. I wonder if part of the problem for many husbands who try to exercise authority in marriage is that the husbands have never, themselves, learnt obedience. In my own community, the "old-fashioned" (but much more revered) people say that before you can exercise authority, you have to have at least a period of being under authority. This may be particularly relevant here. Perhaps the old system of hierarchy in marriage was easier to work with when society as a whole was hierarchical, and a husband as the head of the household was, himself, used to being under the authority of a chain of lords, dukes, earls, etc. up to the King (and beyond, to God)?

I hope this is helpful; at very least perhaps it puts my own notions into some context.

(That wasn't short at all, you naughty person! Sorry. De nada.)

David
working-at-obedience orthodox guy
 

---

Posted by frin (# 9) on :
 
I've been doing some research. The Wife of Bath's husband had a Book of Wicked Wives and I have the modern academic equivalent*.

Submitting to ones husband meant that a wife who had made a vow of abstinence with her husband's consent could not keep that vow if her husband forbade her (Gratian, citing Augustine)

A common theme in the medieval writers cited and the church fathers they draw upon is that woman must be subject to man because 1) he was made first and 2) Eve stuffed up so badly that women should still wear the clothes of the penitent, to more fully atone for Eve's sin (Tertullian, De Cultu Feminarum.

I see several problems here. Accepting the submission doctrine removes a woman's right to not consent to sex.
Atoning for the sin of Eve through submission to men, is anachronistic for those of us who would accept that there was original sin, but who don't invest literal meaning into the early books of Genesis.

I have more to say, but my M-in-law's about to arrive so I have to stop typing.

'frin

*Woman Defamed, Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts, A. Blamires
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The really interesting thing about this thread is how much consensus is developing - reading through the responses from married people, they all seem to agree that in practice, the wife's submission to her husband is conditional on him ordering her to do reasonable things - so if he tells you to jump off a cliff or forbids you to feed your child antibiotics you can tell him where to stuff his headship and do what you consider to be The Right Thing. This seems to be the case *whether or not* the married person in question believes that wives should submit to their husbands. And the people who all say that they believe in headship also say that the husband's duty to his wife is to be prepared to sacrifice himself for her, as Christ sacrificed himself for the Church. The obvious extension to this is that if he is not prepared to sacrifice himself for you, then he has broken his marriage covenant and you are no longer bound to obey him... though you may still choose to do so. So, why promise to submit?

In my case, I promised to obey my husband but no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the New Testament verses which seem to support the notion of headship. However, I still consider myself to be bound by my promise to obey my husband because he hasn't done anything to break his part of the covenant.

This is the rest of your life we're talking about, Snow White. The promises you make now are binding for the next fifty or sixty years (barring accident, or Big G blowing the final whistle of course). Don't let any of us talk you into promising something you are not sure about.

Jane R
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Just in case anyone's worried, I have retained headship in several areas, notably driving, shooting and all matters of hand/eye co-ordination - at least, I think I've retained headship...when I explained this to 'frin she smiled sweetly and said "yes, dear", which I think is an affirmative....

Anyway. A question. Does "sumbission" in the C21 mean something entirely different from, say, the C19? Is the freedom to choose to submit that is now available only exist because women in the past refused to accept the type of subjection practiced in a society that denied them property rights, legal access to their children after divorce, the right to vote, the right to be educated and a whole host of other things that we just take for granted?
 

---

Posted by Claire PB (# 1507) on :
 
I have been following this thread with great interest as it in some ways reflects problems i am going through. I have been in a happy and supportive marriage for nearly seven years. i always thought that we did the equality thing pretty well, but somehow, recently, things are going wrong.
My husband is in a very stressful job and works long hours. I make most of the day-to day decisions, cook, clean, work part time, raise three young children and try to be sympathetic when he gets home. Recently though, my husband has becime very critical, and we have some harsh rows at night when he comes in. The other day we had one such row and he said that I contolled everything and that he had had enough.
I have thought long and hard about this and admit that I am a person who likes things to be ordered and organised, but cannot see that I am the person he thinks I am.
If submitting would make him happy, I would do it out of love, but I am frightened of these rows and his anger and don't want to submit as a way of avoiding dealing with other issues.
I am praying for strength and wisdom, and the ability to look at myself honestly, but feel lost and afraid.

 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Just in case anyone's worried, I have retained headship in several areas, notably driving, shooting and all matters of hand/eye co-ordination -

---

Dyfrig, remind me not to come within a hundred miles of you.



Moo
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Claire PB:
My husband is in a very stressful job and works long hours. I make most of the day-to day decisions, cook, clean, work part time, raise three young children and try to be sympathetic when he gets home. Recently though, my husband has becime very critical, and we have some harsh rows at night when he comes in. The other day we had one such row and he said that I contolled everything and that he had had enough.
[snip]
I am praying for strength and wisdom, and the ability to look at myself honestly, but feel lost and afraid.

---

I would strongly urge you and your husband to see a marriage counsellor.

Marriage is not a static state. Every marriage changes as the circumstances of the partners change.

Considering all the tasks you are juggling, it's not surprising you try to control things. I don't see how you could keep your head above water otherwise.

I think you both need to talk to a disinterested party who can help you figure out what's going on and what you can do about it.

Moo
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Claire PB,

What moo said is very good. I was alarmed too and sad to read your post. There is no excuse for somebody verbally assaulting you. You don't deserve that no matter what you do!

I will ditto what moo said...pls do see somebody about this...preferably a compentant member of the elder clergy in your church.

I will be praying for you, as I am sure others in here will be as well.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Claire PB, what is it about seven years? By far the biggest crisis in my marriage came to the month at seven years. The good news is that we are at nine years now, and our marriage is much stronger for having weathered the storm. The bad news is that it was painful.

I want to echo the advice of those above and say, "Get thee hence to a marriage counselor!" The only time in my life I've been to any counselor was during that seven-year crunch, and then it was under duress. However, it was invaluable to gain that outside perspective.

I would not suggest that you should submit yourself unconditionally to whatever an out-of-balance spouse demands. However, it has been my experience that a gesture of submission/sacrificial love by an innocent person can lead to great conviction in a guilty person.

Finally, be patient. Change is often slow, but it can happen.

scot
 

---

Posted by Claire PB (# 1507) on :
 
Thank you to Moo and Duchess for your advice. Unfortunately we are in a closed community here,and a little conversation goes a long way!! It is such a help to come here and be anonymous. The idea of suggesting counselling to my husband would seem to him as tho' I were making a mountain out of a molehill.
I will however try and talk to our priest,but I worry that then he will view us and our marriage in a different way, and he is the only priest we have access to.
I am sure that this will all settle down, but I just need advice on how to be different, so that I am not controlling things. If anyone can suggest some literature I'd be grateful.
 

---

Posted by Claire PB (# 1507) on :
 
Sorry scot, cross posted. Thank you also for your kindness. I guess I don't want to exacerbate the situation any further by "controlling" where we go from here, because wherever it is that we go, I want it to be together.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I hope your husband is only snappy because of his difficult job situation and that it is nothing long-term. When was the last time you both took a holiday? Not knowing your situation I don't know if this is feasible, but if there is anyone who is able to look after your children for a week or two (close communities are supposed to be supportive communities)- it sounds like a holiday for just the two of you together would be a much needed chance to relax, get less tired and fraught, and maybe if you are lucky talk through the problem of what to do long-term.

Good Luck.
Thoughts and prayers.
 

---

Posted by Sarajane (# 1642) on :
 
Hi all,

Successful marriage is not something I know a lot about, but one thing that has stuck with me from 'families and how to survive them' and that resonates with my own experience is that pregnant women and women with small children need to feel safe, and to have someone looking after them and 'in charge' and looking after them, preferably the father. This enables them to take time out from running the family/ corporation/ world and tune into an infant's mind and needs. At all other times, women generally are the equal of men in leadership skills, but in a biblical society where 10 children and no space between them was the norm, caring, protective, man-in-charge and nurturing, submissive wife focused on baby probably made sense, till the last one grew up, by which time they were both knackered!

Of course the transition from one stage to the other may be rocky. Nobody likes being asked to share the bridge, let alone step off it, and I guess having the position of captain foisted on you is scary too.

sarajane
 

---

Posted by Sarajane (# 1642) on :
 
Hi Claire,

if you really think you (both?) need a route to behaving differently, perhaps you should try the Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus stuff.

But it sounds like you're both tired and need space and time to be nice to each other tho, perhaps away from home. Don't feel selfish in making the space ( foisting children off on friends or grandparents for a weekend a month? ) If it's with the intention of enabling you to stay sane/ together/ parents it's in everyone's interest. Of course if it was his idea.....

Do it before you get to the point when spending time alone with your husband is a chore you can't face because of the row you'll have.

Thinking and praying for you,

Sarajane
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
and sometimes it is not always feasible to go away for a week; when my children were young we would get a babysitter in for just a few hours one evening a week, so we could get away for a short break, to the pub or for a walk, as a couple. we called it our 'sanity time' and it helped keep us afloat until we could take a longer break when the kids were older.

Hope one of the above options will help you get some time together.........
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Paul had a mother-in-law???!!!

Peter certainly did, and she was healed of a fever by Jesus-and promptly got up and put on the dinner.

I am pretty sure that the available evidence indicates that Paul was unmarried. Certainly, in one of his letters he rather grudgingly allowed that if one had to marry, it was better to do so than to burn. He remarked that in his view it would be better to be like himself, who had no inclination to marry.

On the husband as head, it reminds me of my own marriage to my atheist huband. He tried to up the ante by insisting on an obedience clause during the wedding seremony, having taken the line that as a (supposed) believer that I had to take the (biblical) line of wifely submission. The severe old priest who married us (and who had already baptised our first child) replied tartly "Certainly not. You would only try to lead her against her inclination into sin".

P.S 24 years later we are still married (just). And I am convinced that the notion of headship is not only wrong but downright bloody dangerous.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
There is no scriptural reference to Paul's mother-in-law, either in Acts or in his letters.

Peter certainly did have a mother-in-law who was reported to have been cured of a fever by Jesus-and who then got up and cooked dinner.

Paul himself appears to have taken rather a dim view of marriage as being a necessary evil. He complained that he did not see why the brethren could not remain unmarried as he did-he did grudgingly allow that it was better to marry than to burn.

As has already been pointed out,the whole "headship" notion is not relevant now that we as believers live in a time ansd culture where woman are no longer regarded as chattels, breeders and bed-warmers, to be discarded on the grounds of sterility, diminished sex-appeal or worse.

If we are all made in the image of God it makes no sense in a marital relationship that possession of the dangly bits automatically confers headship.

Sounds like a threatened male to me...
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Just reviving this horse to pick up a bit of discussion in Purgatory. The more relevant bits of that discussion are:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the equally abusive though less physically so, model of "Christian marriage" where the woman is submissive to her husband).

---

This statement seems way over the top. What do you mean?

---

Exactly what it says. Any relationship where one party is considered inferior to the other based solely on their gender is IMO abusive. If there are clear differences in ability then that would be a basis for delineation of responsibility (eg: if the husband is useless at making financial decisions then it's only common sense that his wife takes up that responsibility, though not without consultation over big decisions). A marriage is a union of equals, anything else is a distortion of the gospel declaration that "in Christ there is neither male nor female", and at the very least open to considerable abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A marriage is a union of equals, anything else is a distortion of the gospel declaration that "in Christ there is neither male nor female"

---

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and am somewhat bemused by the implication that submission implies inferiority. Doesn't God the Son submit to God the Father? Yet one is not in the least inferior to the other. And where does the abuse come in, exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Where would the abuse come in?

From hubby daring to consider himself her protector/pillar/guide/support?

---

Yes.

Husband and wife should protect, guide and support each other. For any one person in the relationship to usurp that role is an abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Where would the abuse come in?

From hubby daring to consider himself her protector/pillar/guide/support?

---

Yes.

Husband and wife should protect, guide and support each other. For any one person in the relationship to usurp that role is an abuse.

---

Well I was happy to head down the horsey path but if you want to keep the discussion going here, fine.

In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.

(And similarly, in what sense does God the Father's behaviour towards the submissive Son usurp the Son's role?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.

---

It's a usurpation if it prevents the wife from exercising her role of protecting, guiding and supporting her husband. It's a mutual thing, both should do the protecting, guiding and supporting thing for each other. It's certainly a usurpation if, as is sadly far too common, if that "authority" is used by the husband to prevent his wife from using her God-given abilities - eg: in telling her to stay home and keep house rather than go out to work.

---

quote:

---

... but I am saying that it would probably be very difficult to prove it was non-consensual, because sadly, it isn't. That's one of the most difficult things to deal with when working with abuse victims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
There's a difference between being guilty of the abuse you're suffering (insane) and acknowledging that you have allowed yourself to be abused by not leaving (essential to rebuilding self-esteem). I see the latter as empowering.

---

Had not thought of it in those terms and very thought-provoking
 

---

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I disagree. There's a difference between being guilty of the abuse you're suffering (insane) and acknowledging that you have allowed yourself to be abused by not leaving (essential to rebuilding self-esteem). I see the latter as empowering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In what sense does the husband protecting, guiding and supporting the wife consitute a usurpation? No limit on the wife's freedom is implied here.

---

It's a usurpation if it prevents the wife from exercising her role of protecting, guiding and supporting her husband. It's a mutual thing, both should do the protecting, guiding and supporting thing for each other. It's certainly a usurpation if, as is sadly far too common, if that "authority" is used by the husband to prevent his wife from using her God-given abilities - eg: in telling her to stay home and keep house rather than go out to work.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Luke:
Luke 22:24 A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
Luke 22:25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luke 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luke 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Interesting that you brought up that peculiarly Sydney-ite comparison of the subordination of the Son (eternally?) to the Father which the Jensons and the Sydney Diocese have used for all sorts of ways to suppress women both in their personal relationships and the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Gordon, I want to apologize for writing unclearly. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on the personal relationships of the Jensen men with women.

---

quote:

---

minute discussions of how important it might be for women to cover their heads in church was what I was refering to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Where does the insanity come into it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
I still think there's a difference, and an important one between getting someone to acknowledge that they have allowed themselves to be abused by not leaving (and I still think that part of the abuse is getting them to believe that this is not an option) and making them responsible for the abuse. I don't see how piling guilt onto people empowers them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
Where does the insanity come into it?

---

"insane", meaning, it would be insane to blame a person for their abuse

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracie:
I still think there's a difference, and an important one between getting someone to acknowledge that they have allowed themselves to be abused by not leaving (and I still think that part of the abuse is getting them to believe that this is not an option) and making them responsible for the abuse. I don't see how piling guilt onto people empowers them.

---

Not sure why you emphasized this -- it's the very distinction I was trying to make. Of course they are not responsible for the abuse, but once they realize that they don't have to stay, they are responsible for leaving and responsible for not enabling the abuser to continue the "apologize / be sweet for a few days / start abusing again" cycle. And that is in my mind an empowering message. I've seen this in action through representing people pro bono who have fled abuse and sought asylum here. So I'm not just talking out of my hat on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally post-scripted by ChastMastr:
PS: I'm surprised at the notion that the Son is not eternally subordinated to the Father; I understand that subordination (and the Spirit likewise to the Father at least) to be the traditional and orthodox position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question arising from genuine ignorance: what does it mean for the Son to be eternally subordinate to the Father anyway? Surely, since Both are all-good, all-wise and all-knowing, They would have the same opinion as Each Other on any given matter anyway and there would never be a need for subordination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:

I would suggest that the sort of headship described by many posters here - mutuality but with the man being the tie-breaker in the case of disputes - is barely recognisable as headship when set against the sort of behaviour that was expected by St Paul of a husband in first century Rome or Greece or Ephesus.

---

I am wondering what you think that would be exactly, Weed. But I agree to the extent that there seems to be a nervousness about putting into practice some of what Paul is suggesting, without giving away what I think that is in too much detail
 

---

Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:

I would suggest that the sort of headship described by many posters here - mutuality but with the man being the tie-breaker in the case of disputes - is barely recognisable as headship when set against the sort of behaviour that was expected by St Paul of a husband in first century Rome or Greece or Ephesus.

---

I am wondering what you think that would be exactly, Weed. But I agree to the extent that there seems to be a nervousness about putting into practice some of what Paul is suggesting, without giving away what I think that is in too much detail

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
I thought what I was saying was clear enough. If you hold St Paul's 1st century understanding of sexuality to be God's truth then you ought to be consistent and apply St Paul's 1st century view of what a good wife is too without any regard to, or concession to, later cultural and social understanding of the nature and role of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Do we actually know what the first century understanding of sexuality to be?

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, we have access to what Paul thought through his words, and his practice was so flexible as to defy easy categorisation. He would have been a thoroughly confusing person to follow around from a distance:

(snipped text of 1Cor. 9)

Paul appears to have been one of the least culture-bound individuals we know of from that era, demonstrating even more flexibility of practice than Jesus (who followed the Jewish law in every detail - or so he claims in Mt 5:17).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
We know a great deal about life in the Ancient World.

---

quote:

---

If, however, you are suggesting he was flexible on what constituted God-approved sexuality and male-female relationships then I have misunderstood your position on both matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
We know a great deal about life in the Ancient World.

---

Right ... enough to know that you could be monogamous, you could be polygamous, you could fornicate at random, you could be celibate, you could be homosexual, you could be incestuous, or almost any variation inbetween.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
True enough if you were a man, at least in the Greco-Roman world though a good Jew would have their life more restricted. If you were a woman your choice was to be a dutiful, obedient, subservient wife to whoever your father thought would be a suitable husband.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So again I ask: what is actually meant by the assertion that Paul had a typical first century understanding of women, their sexuality, and what was expected in terms of their submission?

---

quote:

---

If you hold St Paul's 1st century understanding of sexuality to be God's truth then you ought to be consistent and apply St Paul's 1st century view of what a good wife is too without any regard to, or concession to, later cultural and social understanding of the nature and role of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So again I ask: what is actually meant by the assertion that Paul had a typical first century understanding of women, their sexuality, and what was expected in terms of their submission? If we are arguing from the available cultural ooptions that we are aware of from the New testament, I don't think the answer is clear at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
So again I ask: what is actually meant by the assertion that Paul had a typical first century understanding of women, their sexuality, and what was expected in terms of their submission? If we are arguing from the available cultural ooptions that we are aware of from the New testament, I don't think the answer is clear at all.

---

Actually, I agree that Paul was atypical for his society (whether Greek or Jewish).
<snip interesting theory>
There's a good argument to say that Paul (and Jesus) took a big step from the position of their day towards more equal treatment for women. Are we to stop where they got to, or continue what they started?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Hi Weed,

Possibly I was reading too much into your statement that

quote:

---

If you hold St Paul's 1st century understanding of sexuality to be God's truth then you ought to be consistent and apply St Paul's 1st century view of what a good wife is too without any regard to, or concession to, later cultural and social understanding of the nature and role of women.

---

If you weren't meaning to link Paul's understanding to a 1st century understanding, why include the words "1st century" in this statement? Especially as contrasted with "later cultural and social understanding", which seems to suggest a time-boundness to Paul's views?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
If they really were atypical and brilliant creative thinkers—and I agree they were—then they could've come up with the fully monty of women's rights, gay ordination, and a zillion possibilities undreamt of by us, or their contemporaries. that they didn't is at least as significant as the steps to overhaul they did take.

---

quote:

---

I mean, Jesus wasn't bothered about shooting crater-sized holes in Jewish legalism when he wanted to, eg the Sermon on the Mount.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, isn't the view you outlined at best an argument from silence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Now it's fine by me if you don't want to follow what St Paul was actually talking about - I don't either - but to say that he was really describing some kind of mutual submission or servanthood doesn't make any sense to me.

---

quote:

---

From Ephesians 5
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

---

quote:

---

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
...
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
The "love" in v25 seems to be a subset of the "submit" in v21, just as the "obey" in 6v1 and 6v5 are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
But in one of your earlier contributions to this thread you said you don't hold head-covering as an imperative. I would like to know why you depart from God-breathed scripture in this way before I say any more.

---

Really, Weed, if I hadn’t picked you as a kind and thoughtful person from reading your other posts, I could almost swear that you were trying to ask a question to make me appear confused, foolish and inconsistent If this is your plan then quite likely you will succeed, but it will be Pyrrhic as my shortcomings are already well and truly in the public domain.

However before I stumble over my own feet may I wonder aloud as to how this issue helps your case? You’ve said that the issue for you is not that Paul was culture-bound but rather that we now know far more about

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:

physiology, biology, human anatomy, human behaviour and the science of the physical world.

---

quote:

---

is creative modern exegesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:


Just one further point on the question of whether inequality means inferiority.

---

As I have not observed anyone on this thread sugessting that women are not equal to men, I'm not sure what relevance this has.

I have seen people argue that men and women are not the same, but that, IMHO, is entirely different.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Without delving too deeply into what these reasons actually mean and how they work, they appear to be linked to the order of creation itself; and not to conditions prevailing in first century Corinth.

<snip>

unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
sorry, hope my comment didn't offend you — I just think that although submission is a key idea, it doesn't mean that the husband submits to the wife any more than the parents obey the children or the masters obey the slaves.

I agree that the way Christ serves the church is the way the husband serves the wife, that seems spot on to me and obvious from the passage, solving a lot of problems with wrong ideas of authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin - and I wouldn't want to define practice between Christians based on a penalty for sin that Christ has paid for us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:


Just one further point on the question of whether inequality means inferiority.

---

As I have not observed anyone on this thread sugessting that women are not equal to men, I'm not sure what relevance this has.

I have seen people argue that men and women are not the same, but that, IMHO, is entirely different.

---

I didn't express that very well, did I? In fact what I said was a nonsense. I was trying to tackle the idea that has been expressed on this thread that the fact that a woman is always under the authority of her husband doesn't mean she is inferior.

The trouble is, women have been judged as inferior in every mainstream culture in history since the year dot so the mantra "of course you are equal, you're just different and that's why you can't do the things we can do and have to submit to our authority" doesn't wash. St Paul didn't think it either. He thought that all were subject to Christ but in the woman's case there was an interim authority in the shape of a man.

Am in the process of constructing a reply to Gordon but it's taking a little while.
 

---

Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 
Apologies for the length of this. It has probably got a bit disjointed but I hope you can see the argument. I tried to stick to the main point I was raising but it has inevitably got into scriptural interpretation. I was deferring to the structure and content of your post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
But in one of your earlier contributions to this thread you said you don't hold head-covering as an imperative. I would like to know why you depart from God-breathed scripture in this way before I say any more.

---

Really, Weed, if I hadn’t picked you as a kind and thoughtful person from reading your other posts, I could almost swear that you were trying to ask a question to make me appear confused, foolish and inconsistent If this is your plan then quite likely you will succeed, but it will be Pyrrhic as my shortcomings are already well and truly in the public domain.

However before I stumble over my own feet may I wonder aloud as to how this issue helps your case? You’ve said that the issue for you is not that Paul was culture-bound but rather that we now know far more about

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
physiology, biology, human anatomy, human behaviour and the science of the physical world.

---

quote:

---

(which actually sounds like it’s talking somewhat about culture-boundness, but there we are)

But how, may I ask, is hat-wearing affected by greater knowledge in any of these areas? Again, it makes me wonder why you ask about the issue, as the wearing of hats doesn’t seem to be modified by being more aware of physiology, biology, anatomy, behaviour or the physical sciences.

---

quote:

---

Anyway here is my take on it FWIW. 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t so much encourage hat-wearing as the covering of the head of the woman, and the reason given is not cultural or biological but because “kataischunei tehn kephalehn autou”, “she dishonours her head” (1 Cor 11:5), in this context, her husband: and “dia tous angelous”, “on account of the angels” [poss ‘messengers’]” (1 Cor 11:10). Without delving too deeply into what these reasons actually mean and how they work, they appear to be linked to the order of creation itself; and not to conditions prevailing in first century Corinth. Given also that the alternative to head-covering for the woman is “keirastho”; that she cut her hair or shave her head (which, Paul adds, is “aischron”, “disgraceful” — so don’t do it), the issue seems to be one of physical appearance of the woman as distinct from that of the man.

---

quote:

---

One commonly suggested interpretation amongst evangelicals is that the woman was being told not to dress like a temple prostitute (esp the head shaving). This is an appealing idea because as an instruction it makes sense, given what we know of Paul’s negative attitude to sexual immorality and its prevalence in the Corinthian church. Unfortunately the passage itself provides no evidence for this whatsoever, so it seems to me to require specialist knowledge and, because it uses a cultural reconstruction to reinterpret the text is simply theological liberalism dressed up as evangelical scholarship.

---

quote:

---

However I notice in v 16 that Paul gives as one of his reasons for insisting on this that “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” In other words, Paul now appeals to current practice within all the churches of God. From this I take it that Paul himself is appealing to conditions prevailing at the time of writing; and that were those conditions otherwise, the nature of the appeal made might be different.

---

quote:

---

11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

---

quote:

---

I conclude from this that in the 21st century, where head covering amongst women in churches is practised almost nowhere (at least in the West), the specific application is no longer relevant.

---

quote:

---

OK, so far this looks like bog-standard liberalism and twisting out from the plain meaning of the text.

---

quote:

---

But I think the difference is this: that the reason for altering the contemporary application is, that Paul himself links the application to the current practice of the churches. The current practice has changed, therefore the application changes.

---

quote:

---

I think I’ve answered your question as best I can, but there remains possibly some curiosity as to what contemporary application would be. I believe that the answer is that we should retain Paul’s concern for physical signifiers in our dress of the difference between men and women: that is, that a deliberate attempt to obliterate the distinction by having women dress exactly like men in every respect is an indication that male authority is being usurped, and therefore not good. Oh, and before you ask, yes women are allowed to wear trousers or jeans on this view, and it’s not compulsory for them to wear dresses — unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.

---

quote:

---

3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God... 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
On another thread recently josephine made the interesting point that in the Orthodox Church even today a widow is still considered to be the wife of her deceased husband. Look at the pictures of elderly Greek widows dressed in black. They aren't signifying that they are bound by the authority of men generally but that they are the wife of a deceased husband.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Umm, Weed? Did you somehow get the impression that the Orthodox Church treats widows and widowers differently? If so, then I apologize for creating confusion.

---

No, not at all, josephine. You are always very clear. I only mentioned the widows and not the widowers because I was thinking generally of the position of women in relation to their husbands.
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
*faints*

I agree with custard........
 

---

Posted by The Lady of the Lake (# 4347) on :
 
Has anybody else read
Does Christianity Teach Male Headship ?

I found it very helpful as it addresses the reasons for the contemporary debates about this.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 
Weed, thanks for your thoughtful reply to my earlier post. It will take a while to get on to it, so please don't feel I'm ignoring you if you see the usual tripe from me up in Heaven or elsewhere. I'll get back to you.
 

---

Posted by Levor (# 5711) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Interesting that you brought up that peculiarly Sydney-ite comparison of the subordination of the Son (eternally?) to the Father which the Jensons and the Sydney Diocese have used for all sorts of ways to suppress women both in their personal relationships and the church. And some have said that that particular twist on trinitarianism smells strongly of Arius. If I hadn't even known to what sexist purposes that spin on the Trinity was being put to use, I'd had argued that Christ was necessarily subordinated to the Father in becoming human, but in his eternal divinity there is no subordination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Father is the eternal cause of the Son and the Spirit in a way that neither the Son or the Spirit is the cause of the Father. The Son is eternally begotten, and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Thus the Son and Spirit are subordinate ontologically, albeit not in glory or majesty etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Levor:
Every Orthodox theologian I've read on the topic has strongly rejected any such suggestion as something synonomous with Arianism. Isn't the homoousious intended to affirm that the Son has the same ontology (being) as the Father?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Ooh, ooh, a Trinity discussion! Now this is much better and far more interesting than boring old Headship. This being Dead Horses and all, perhaps if we keep the conversation to a whisper we’ll be able to keep going for a while before anyone notices. I might call up a few friends and get them in here too.

---

quote:

---

Cultural reconstructions are at best tentative and can only be used to suggest new possibilities for textual interpretation of the Bible. The Bible must ultimately be self-interpreting.

---

quote:

---

But a question for you Weed: I am now a bit confused as to what you mean by inferiority. You seem to believe that if Jesus is portrayed as submitting to his Father, he is necessarily not God and not ontologically of one substance with his Father. Is this so, in your opinion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
The trouble comes, IMVHO, when, later in that 1st century with John's Gospel and beyond with the Councils, we get a quite different approach which inform the trinitarian view held over the last 1500 years or so. Please excuse my argument's lack of subtlety but I think that once people decided Jesus was divine they had a problem with how to reconcile that with a monotheistic faith and especially with a God that was unchanging.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
the_grip, I'll deal with most of your points at some later date, but this one I cannot let stand.

quote:

---

The tenets of the church have always upheld women. Nowhere in the church's claims have you ever found a proclaimation that women are inferior to men before God.

---

This is patently false. The church has for centuries consistently claimed that women are inferior to men before God. You may read here all about the church's tradition of holding that women are inferior to men. If you want context, there are plenty of links on that site to the full texts of the documents.

The church has a long and ugly history of despising women. Here's little taste: Tertullian called us "the devil's gateway". St Gregory of Nazianzum said, "Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; But woman have the malice of both." St. Ambrose claimed that women were not in fact made in the image of God. St. Jerome said, "Woman is the root of all evil." St. Augustine's regard for women was so low that he couldn't figure out why we were created at all, until it occurred to him that without women there would be no children. Naturally, he concluded that procreation was the sole reason women were created.

---

quote:

---

It is Protestant egalitarians that are out of step, as far as I can work out.

I wonder if part of the reason why the link between the relationship of the Father and the Son and the question of headship (and women's public ministry) has only occured in conservative evangelical circles is because it hasn't been fought as strongly on egalitarian grounds in Catholic and Orthodox circles? In evangelical circles the analogy has only been brought in to refute the argument that

submission = inferiority

---

quote:

---

The point being that it doesn’t take a lot of reading to work out that my mental image of a shepherd only corresponds very vaguely to what is there in the Bible, and in the end I am far better off just looking up the words “sheep” and “shepherd” in a concordance, chasing up the references, and working out what I can from there.

Now undoubtedly someone who’s done archaeology and dug up a lot of first century sheep bones will be able to tell me a bit about first century sheep and how they were microchipped, but really how will that help? The only thing that will do for me will be to throw up plausible possibilities about what the Bible verses about shepherding mean. And if there is some unknown local Galilean variant of shepherding where shepherding is done in a very different way from the rest of the Ancient Near East, then even what I do know about the first century in general terms will be of little use.

Sorry to rabbit on about sheep but the point I hope is clear. Cultural reconstructions are at best tentative and can only be used to suggest new possibilities for textual interpretation of the Bible. The Bible must ultimately be self-interpreting.

---

That seems vaguely obscurantist, to be honest. Abandoning shepherds for the moment - rather amusingly I have preached sermons in which I have contrasted modern and ancient ideas of shepherds with the message - 'ware the idea that the Bible is self-interpreting - consider the use of the word 'Lord' in the Bible. For most of us we may think of "The House of Lords", "Lord's Cricket Ground", "Lord Irvine", or "Lord Hailsham", "Everyone loves a Lord", "Drunk as a Lord" or even an episode of a 1960s espionage series entitled "But He's a Lord, Mr Callan". The sheer terror and power and the connotations of more than human power behind the Greek "Kurios" is absent from any of these modern allusions. Of course, we can go to a concordance, keeping the amount of modern scholarship we rely on to a minimum - but the scholarship neutral concordance has yet to be invented. There is going to be some echo of modern thought in our reading of scripture whether we will or no. Should we take it on unknowingly and unconsciously, or should we take it on through the lens of Holy Tradition and seeking the best possible scholarship?

Actually, we're quite safe with 'Lord' because it has been safeguarded by Holy Tradition. But given that the meaning and understanding of words shift the idea that we can merely refer to the Bible without reason and Tradition seems naive. Karl Barth objected to fundamentalism on the grounds that it only allowed for the divine inspiration of the writers of scripture and not the readers. This seems to me to be deeply profound. Any interpretation of scripture will arise out of an interaction between the reader and the text and the most dangerous readers are those who are unaware of this fact.
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think I’ve answered your question as best I can, but there remains possibly some curiosity as to what contemporary application would be. I believe that the answer is that we should retain Paul’s concern for physical signifiers in our dress of the difference between men and women: that is, that a deliberate attempt to obliterate the distinction by having women dress exactly like men in every respect is an indication that male authority is being usurped, and therefore not good. Oh, and before you ask, yes women are allowed to wear trousers or jeans on this view, and it’s not compulsory for them to wear dresses — unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.

---

I'm curious - in what context does my wearing jeans or trousers signify a rebellion against the created order and an attempt to usurp male authority?
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Perhaps if you're wearing them underneath an alb with stole?
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I'm curious - in what context does my wearing jeans or trousers signify a rebellion against the created order and an attempt to usurp male authority?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
I can't resist adding my twopennorth after Levor's interesting contribution. It's a case of fool's rushing in because I have nowhere near the theological background to justify arguing with those who've studied this more than me.

---

quote:

---

The trouble comes, IMVHO, when, later in that 1st century with John's Gospel and beyond with the Councils, we get a quite different approach which inform the trinitarian view held over the last 1500 years or so. Please excuse my argument's lack of subtlety but I think that once people decided Jesus was divine they had a problem with how to reconcile that with a monotheistic faith and especially with a God that was unchanging. The only way to do that was to hold that Jesus was the eternal Son of God, begotten before time. Two isn't a nice number so we have to have three, so we bring in the Holy Spirit who therefore also has to have existed before time despite the fact that Jesus tells us that the Godhead is spirit anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
I wonder. I would not rule out a theory which has been defended by the late, brilliant Colin Gunton in his wonderful "Homage to Cappadocia"* but I do feel a degree of unease with the idea of the subordination of the Son. I think the problem with it is that it imports ideas of human power relationships and status into the Godhead which is clearly beyond that sort of thing.

---

quote:

---

Taking the analogy further, on the one hand, the language of subordination may be used to explain, in certain instances, the relations of the persons of the Holy Trinity but to define dogmatically (in the proper sense of the word) the son as being definitively subordinate to the Father seems wrong as I don't think that the Trinity relate to one another in that way. The relationship is one of mutual self-giving. The language of subordination, held lightly to, is one thing. To treat it as some kind of propositional reality is like inserting a head by Picasso into a landscape by Claude. It just doesn't work.

---

I think we're close at this point, but the difference is important. I think when the Nicene Creed says that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God that these are all attempts to make statements of propositional reality and they are all 'subordinationist' statements because they point to the Father as the Cause and Source of the Son. But they are also the reason why the Son is equal to the Father: precisely because he is true God from true God he is homousious with the Father. His "equality" is a consequence of his "subordination".

And I think the mutual self-giving talk that is common among many Protestant theologians at the moment is an attempt to replace the begetting of the Son (and the procession of the Spirit) with perichoresis as the unifying principle of the Godhead. It is an attempt to replace the early Church's view that there is a primary self-giving of the Father to the Son and the Spirit that the Son and the Spirit then give back in response with a flat, mutual self-giving. It is an attempt to redraw the Trinity on egalitarian grounds.

I think it is a different Trinitarian theology then that represented by Nicea. From what I can see, Moltmann seems to go in that direction. Millard Erickson claims that the Arians were right and if the Son was begotten then he is inferior, and Miroslav Volf tries to separate off the relationships of origin (begetting and procession) from the way the operations of the Godhead function. They are all, in their different ways rejecting classical trinitarian theology as not reflecting the kind of 'equality' they believe in.

When they then say that the Son being 'subordinate' to the Father is Arian, I'm increasingly of the view that they should come clean and say outright that the Nicene Creed is Arian. The idea that Nicea is the triumph of Arianism is well, fairly ironic.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Levor you clearly are a well-read person.

I like what you say about the moderns painting Nicea as a victory for Arianism. How ironic, indeed! How human (menschlich, allzu menschlich!) not to see how one's own presuppositions colour how one sees another's position.

ETA:

I wanted to make a more general remark concerning headship. Doesn't St. Paul say, "Submit to one another"? It's not like "mutual submission" was invented in the late 20th century. He says, "Submit to one another, wives to your husbands as to the Lord." It's all one sentence but too many translations break it in two pieces, and put the first half with the previous paragraph and the second half with the next. But it's all one sentence in the greek. We are all to submit to one another; then he emphasizes one subset of that universal mutual submission, and goes on to expand on that one bit. But the "submit to one another" stands. And it seems we have to have some idea of what mutual submission means to make sense of that command, whatever century we find ourselves in.

[ 08. April 2005, 10:36: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Am I being ignorant here? Or is this just something I've never thought about, given that my interest in marriage is never going to be a personal one? -

What has the subordination (or not) of the Son to the Father got to do with it? I was under the impression that in the NT marriage was an ikon of the relationship not between the Father and the Son, but between Christ and the Church.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
More on mutual submission:

quote:

---

1 Cor 7:4, NASB
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

---

quote:

---

And I think the mutual self-giving talk that is common among many Protestant theologians at the moment is an attempt to replace the begetting of the Son (and the procession of the Spirit) with perichoresis as the unifying principle of the Godhead. It is an attempt to replace the early Church's view that there is a primary self-giving of the Father to the Son and the Spirit that the Son and the Spirit then give back in response with a flat, mutual self-giving. It is an attempt to redraw the Trinity on egalitarian grounds.

I think it is a different Trinitarian theology then that represented by Nicea. From what I can see, Moltmann seems to go in that direction. Millard Erickson claims that the Arians were right and if the Son was begotten then he is inferior, and Miroslav Volf tries to separate off the relationships of origin (begetting and procession) from the way the operations of the Godhead function. They are all, in their different ways rejecting classical trinitarian theology as not reflecting the kind of 'equality' they believe in.

When they then say that the Son being 'subordinate' to the Father is Arian, I'm increasingly of the view that they should come clean and say outright that the Nicene Creed is Arian. The idea that Nicea is the triumph of Arianism is well, fairly ironic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Am I being ignorant here? Or is this just something I've never thought about, given that my interest in marriage is never going to be a personal one? -

What has the subordination (or not) of the Son to the Father got to do with it? I was under the impression that in the NT marriage was an ikon of the relationship not between the Father and the Son, but between Christ and the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Levor:
But they are also the reason why the Son is equal to the Father: precisely because he is true God from true God he is homousious with the Father. His "equality" is a consequence of his "subordination".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oxymoron:
Coming back to the opening question, might I suggest that a 50/50 power share in a relationship IS actually submitting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Am I being ignorant here? Or is this just something I've never thought about, given that my interest in marriage is never going to be a personal one? -

What has the subordination (or not) of the Son to the Father got to do with it? I was under the impression that in the NT marriage was an ikon of the relationship not between the Father and the Son, but between Christ and the Church.

---

quote:

---

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man and the head of Christ is God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
I'm surprised that you should say the issue is the physical appearance of the women as opposed to that of the men as I haven't heard that as a possible interpretation before. Are you saying that St Paul would have been happy if the women had all worn their hair loose but red clothes and the men had worn yellow clothes?

---

quote:

---

What I am saying is that as soon as you allow in the cultural argument in the area of headship at all, you have great difficulty in denying it with integrity with regard to what St Paul says about various forms of immorality. Do you see the parallel?

---

quote:

---

In a subsequent post, Weed said:
The bible doesn't interpret itself. Do you think St Paul didn't use his intellect and his reason when he compose the first letter to the Corinthians? You can't even understand the words he uses unless you use your God-given brain. Can you read the NT in a foreign language you've never come across before and understand it? Of course you can't. The words aren't magical, somehow conveying meaning without any use of the brain. Why shouldn't we use our intellect and our reason and our study of the ancient history of the Middle East to try to get at what St Paul was saying? The easiest way to to that is to try as far as possible to put ourselves in his position or the position of someone listening to him in Corinth.


Under your method you are using cultural information but only that cultural information that you manage to glean from the bible.

---

quote:

---

Luke 22:25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luke 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luke 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
no way. people still teach this?

---

quote:

---

Gordon:
It's very hard to think of examples because most of the time, we wear clothes for fashion, comfort, vanity, perceived attractiveness, functionality and so on. It's unusual to wear clothing to make a deliberate ideological statement; something which may have been going on at Corinth judging by by Paul's reaction to it.

---

I was thinking about this and remembered the situation in the 70s when groups of women got together at rallies and burnt their bras. This is the removal rather than the wearing, but the dynamic is the same.

That was most definitely a symbolic and an ideological action and a rejection of male authority - but not against the godly sort of authority (people interpret) Paul as talking about.

[btw, I don't think the wearing of bras need be an indicator of patriarchal oppression or submission to male authority... though an argument could be made for it (women wanting to look beautiful for men or even just themselves, because men have told them they don't look beautiful with saggy tits)]

[ 09. April 2005, 11:06: Message edited by: The Coot ]
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
I apologise in advance if this is a simplistic or stupid question.

If Paul gives us guidelines for managing the relationship between slaves and masters alongside guidelines for managing the relationship between husbands and wives, why do we not interperet that as indicating that we ought to keep (or be) slaves? Why is the lack of (legal) slavery in the UK not considered another sign of fallenness (as someone described uppity women)?

Or rather - even if we decide slavery is inappropriate for us, it's not compulsory after all any more than marriage! - by what authority would we assume the right to stop others from doing it?

If the social and political morality of slavery can be rethought without violating Paul, why can't the same rethinking apply to male\female relationships?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
By way of introduction:

I've been round all sides of this debate (hi Emma )

I've read the whole thread because Mrs. E told me to

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I think I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "inferiority". You have given examples; examples which I deny are what the bible had in mind when it teaches submission. But you still seem to be insisting that submission will and must equate to inferiority. True, or have I got that wrong?

---

quote:

---

"A woman must learn in quietness and full submission... For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner"

---

(tried to link to context using BibleGateway but it seems to be down)

I know this doesn't address marriage but it is held up by Grudem, Piper et al. as an "appeal to a creational principle" as a justification of male leadership which does not rely on cultural context. And it could be construed as pretty inferiorising on Eve and her descendants (who will however be saved if they bear children...)
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
hehe *waves hello to euty* (and apologises for allthe trouble that caused ho hum...)

theres a fantastic book ive got - ill see if i can find it.
 

---

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Custard.......I would say the wife has a problem and one only she could resolve.

THAT is the rub with this argument,at what point does either the husband insist or the wife rufuse.

And IF it's ok for the husband to insist then surely it's ok for the wife to refuse....?

On ANY issue. Working where? how? Going out? Staying in? Holidaying in Benidorm or Birmingham... Worshipping at St Cuthberts or Cornerstone...
Where and how does anyone draw the line?
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
You know, if the reformed traditions accepted the ordained priesthood, they wouldn't need to get their knicks in a twist over Headship... because they could exclude women from positions of clerical authority by the 'imaging Christ' argument.


 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
What makes variations on male headship work out IRL is when the spouses both have the same or similar underpinnings for their applications of the Scriptures/principles to daily life.

That is, in my experience, if the decision at hand can be tied into somehow mattering as regards Christian witness, Christian living, functional church life, then one isn't submitting in any sort of "inferior" way.

And if I can tie in my desires about decisions to a "Thus saith the Lord" or to an "it's better for the congregation / the family in our witness", then it's not hard for the spouse to submit himself to me. Usually.
 

---

Posted by Custard. (# 5402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
You know, if the reformed traditions accepted the ordained priesthood, they wouldn't need to get their knicks in a twist over Headship... because they could exclude women from positions of clerical authority by the 'imaging Christ' argument.

---

quote:

---

unless the wearing of trousers or jeans signifies in that context a rebellion against the created order.
(Emph. mine)

---

quote:

---

Genesis 2: [25] And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
My huge problem with it is that *in context* the passages would have been hugely liberating for women.

Household codes of the time usaully had "women must, children must, slaves must.." the main point paul was making is that he was revolutionary. He was suggesting those in authority actually had a responsibilty to those they are in authority over.

As in... not only children must.. BUT ALSO parents. not just slave, BUT ALSO owners..

So that would have been the real punch of the passage.

Similarly the husband head as christ is head.. read that bit that says "ahh but i am not talking about marriage, i am talking about the church". He is using a relevant daily metaphor for his purposes, like sheep and shepherds and all that.To argue backwards is bad logic. Like arguing that sheep should be like christians...

In total, it is those teaching that women should have lesser roles than men in todays society that have missed the point of the passages and arent taking them seriously. IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
I'm convinced men and women *are* different, personally. And any 2 people (male or female) will think differently and relate in different ways, so in a marriage obviously different roles will be taken. Surprisingly I personally would love the house"wife" role, and responsibility for kids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I'd be really interested to hear from the people most involved in the thread back nearly 3 years ago -- how their thinking on this has gone on in the ensuing time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
duchess, I agree with the principle of Bible study you espouse. But, when you read Pauls letters "studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it" then the society (and the prejudices, expectations and understanding of that society) of the original recipients of those letters must be taken into account in just the way Louise and others have said. The result of such a study may well be to say that even if the letters in question are inerrant instructions to the churches they were sent that doesn't mean those same instructions are inerrant to us because our situation is so different. In this case that the husbands' headship & wifes' submission is not, in our society, the way marriage should be arranged.

That's not to say that the texts in question are meaningless today. I tend to the view that as the distinct gender roles assumed in the first century have been blurred and are almost non-existant today then so have the headship/submission roles in relationship. A husband and wife should, I think, share headship and submit to each other.

Of course, I'm single so I'm not talking from experience here at all.

---

I was wondering given that Alan is no longer single what effect that has had on his thinking!

*I put evangelical into inverted commas because it is very much a subset of evangelicalism which goes in for this, but I couldn't think of a succint way of putting this!

Carys
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Yes, I was sorta tongue in cheek, Custard.

But is this what this whole Headship thing is about? The reformed traditions version of baulking at ovaries in orders?

I don't think it's about the ordering of the household... but I am interested to know the practicalities of how Gordon (or others who practice the biblical model) does it, if he/they wish/s to share.


[Janine, are you sure you're not Greek? It sounds out you have worked out how to wear the trousers while making the man think he is wearing the trousers]
 

---

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
Am I alone in thinking that if Paul's intention was to clarify things then he choose quite possibly the most inept way of doing so?

I also think we are still waiting for someone who believes in headship to explain what it actually means or is it just something we should assent to and have no idea of how it might impact on our marriages?

At the moment it seems to me the danger is that those defending headship are divesting it of virtually all meaning. Which I think was one of Weed's initial points.

Luigi
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon:
It's very hard to think of examples because most of the time, we wear clothes for fashion, comfort, vanity, perceived attractiveness, functionality and so on. It's unusual to wear clothing to make a deliberate ideological statement; something which may have been going on at Corinth judging by by Paul's reaction to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
In our own family - well things are unusual. Uniquely in our own circle, though it is happening more and more, we "swapped roles". I gave up paid work to look after the kids while my wife became the breadwinner. And, being at the domestic core, I found that in fact, if not entirely in control of things, I was seen as crucial... so that in the end, rather than challenge me, children, spouse, would back off. Perhaps this is as it ever was, the homekeeper finally calling the tune, in which case in a conventional family maybe male headship was always something of a fantasy. There's always been a strand in popular myth that women let men imagine they're in charge but really hold all the reins. I can believe that.

---

• My mother is a smart, competent and level-headed woman, and while she is anything beaten down, and while they function as partners in a lot of ways, she has deferred throughout their marriage to my smart, competent but less level-headed and also unbelievably stubborn father. Because that's the way she was raised, and that's just how things are.
• My grandfather was a traveling salesman who cheated on my grandmother, and she knew it, and she just bore it, because that's the way she was raised, and that's just how things are.
• The man who is now my cousin's husband asked permission from her father before he asked her to marry him (in the mid-1980s, mind you), because in all of their minds a woman is under the authority of her father until she is under the authority of her husband.
• A few years ago I briefly dated someone whose explanation of why his non-denominational church would never have a female pastor all came down to male headship. (This was the last date I had with this guy, needless to say!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
This article is a good summary of the biblical arguments for headship and for explaining what it is and what it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
This article is a good summary of the biblical arguments for headship and for explaining what it is and what it isn't.

---

How would you address the view, expressed several times earlier on in this thread, that the practical outworking of Grudem's position (the husband effectively has a 'casting vote' at times of serious decision-making) only makes sense in the light of huge historical developments granting rights to women, developments which have occured in the face of traditional interpretations of the role and status of man and woman based on the passages he quotes in support of his view?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Thanks Josephine - that was helpful, especially given that SJC predates feminism by a very long way and that he seems to have a very healthy view of headship.

---

quote:

---

And what may be the cause of his setting them under so great subjection? Because the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded. Here you see why he set over them their husbands as teachers, for the benefit of both. For so he both rendered the women orderly, and the husbands he made anxious, as having to deliver to their wives very exactly what they heard.

---

quote:

---

Seest thou the wisdom of Paul, what kind of testimony he adduced, one that not only enjoins on them silence, but silence too with fear; and with as great fear as that wherewith a maid servant ought to keep herself quiet.

---

• Try this exercise: take a Bible concordance, for any translation, and look up the word 'headship'. I guarantee you will not find it. A tiny handful of Bible verses which use the Greek word 'kephale' in relation to marriage, have been inflated into a total system for all relations between men and women.
• Now try this: find me the verse where it says that a man is head of his household. You won't find that one either - there isn't one.
• Thirdly, ask yourself this: in the relation between Christ and the church, to which Paul is comparing marriage, who is required to make the greater sacrifice - Christ or the church?
• Fourthly, what is the ratio between the sermons you have heard exhorting wives to submit, and the sermons you have heard exhorting husbands to lay down their lives? And have you ever heard a sermon on 'Submit to one another'? If not, why not?
• And finally: it seems fairly self-evident that many of Paul's directives regarding female behaviour were designed to stop the church appearing scandalous in his society. Now, which is the scandal in today's society - equality of marriage partners, or a hierarchy over male over female? Surely it is the hierarchy, which our society is scandalized by (and so it should be, when one sees what abuse has been perpetrated in the name of hierarchy). So, what would Paul be saying today, to avoid the church becoming a scandal?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Do you consider St John Chrysostom's views on women to be healthy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Esmeralda:
[*]Thirdly, ask yourself this: in the relation between Christ and the church, to which Paul is comparing marriage, who is required to make the greater sacrifice - Christ or the church?

---

quote:

---

[*]Fourthly, what is the ratio between the sermons you have heard exhorting wives to submit, and the sermons you have heard exhorting husbands to lay down their lives? And have you ever heard a sermon on 'Submit to one another'? If not, why not?

---

quote:

---

[*]And finally: it seems fairly self-evident that many of Paul's directives regarding female behaviour were designed to stop the church appearing scandalous in his society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
Gordon, if you're willing to share more about the way you pursue your different roles, can you indicate in which spheres you exercise your husbandly authority?

What you've related seems no different to any other husband and wife. When does crunch time come?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It includes a responsibility that the husband himself, like Christ, submit to the will of the heavenly Father and demonstrate the work of the Spirit in his life—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

...

speaking of the things of God’s character, will and actions

---

quote:

---

The only biblical example I can think of is 1 Corinthians 7:1-6; which raises the possibility of a scenario where either the husband or wife wants to have sex and the other doesn’t. Here, the advice Paul gives is quite clear that if the husband would like to abstain, and the wife wouldn’t, then the husband must give way and they must have sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
He goes on at very great length about how, whatever they do for their wives, however much they think they love their wives, it's not enough

...

To wives, he says they should respect their husband. But if a woman's husband doesn't love her, that doesn't free her from her responsibility to her -- but it does diminish it. He tells her that she should not stubbornly contradict him. If she does that, she's done enough.

He never tells husbands that they have done enough.

...

So, in the Orthodox Church, that's what it means to be the husband, the head -- to do everything you can for your wife, and to know that it still isn't enough, and will never be enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Mason:
This all sounds very noble but the question remains as to whether one's ability to demonstrate the work of the Spirit in the ways described, and the insights necessary to speaking of God's character, will and actions - whether these are somehow more in the grasp of men than women purely because of their gender.

---

quote:

---

But, as I'm sure you know, it's this exact logic, with the genders reversed, that's been so abused in the past with relation to rape within marriage. And although it's possible to state it as you did, it seems to me that because of certain physical considerations (not to be too crude) such a view is always more liable to be misused by the man than the woman - at least in such an extreme way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Jesus never used physical force to coerce people to his ends

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Jesus never used physical force to coerce people to his ends

---

Hmm, I seem to remember a certain incident with some money-changers and a whip.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
The whip is only mentioned in John 2:15, and in the same verse the reason implied for its use is "the sheep and oxen".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Mason:
This all sounds very noble but the question remains as to whether one's ability to demonstrate the work of the Spirit in the ways described, and the insights necessary to speaking of God's character, will and actions - whether these are somehow more in the grasp of men than women purely because of their gender.

---

I make no such claim! It is a point about where ultimate responsibility lies, not who's better at it.

---

quote:

---

The administrator of a hospital may take ultimate responsibility for the results of brain surgery in the hospital, even if his wife the brain surgeon is better at brain surgery than the administrator is.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But, as I'm sure you know, it's this exact logic, with the genders reversed, that's been so abused in the past with relation to rape within marriage. And although it's possible to state it as you did, it seems to me that because of certain physical considerations (not to be too crude) such a view is always more liable to be misused by the man than the woman - at least in such an extreme way.

---

Sure, and "abused" is spot on. Jesus never used physical force to coerce people to his ends, even though:

Matt. 26:53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Interpreting and applying 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 correctly is about paying attention to the New Testament context, not prooftexting it as grounds for physical abuse or rape within marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Not to say that this is how things are in your family, but in general it seems to me entirely possible that a man who is "homekeeper" might be taken more seriously than a woman in the same role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Do you consider St John Chrysostom's views on women to be healthy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
This article is a good summary of the biblical arguments for headship and for explaining what it is and what it isn't.

---

How would you address the view, expressed several times earlier on in this thread, that the practical outworking of Grudem's position (the husband effectively has a 'casting vote' at times of serious decision-making) only makes sense in the light of huge historical developments granting rights to women, developments which have occured in the face of traditional interpretations of the role and status of man and woman based on the passages he quotes in support of his view?

---

quote:

---

Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

---

quote:

---

Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Now in your earlier response you have quoted the immediate context to show that there is also a link to the natural order of things; and so there is. But the natural order of things is not just about hair-wearing! It’s about submission. So Paul supports the latter (submission), insists on the former (hair style) in a situation where all churches are following the same practice— and then leaves later readers to figure out application in their context.

---

quote:

---

So the cutural studies stuff is helpful but not essential, and has its own pitfalls too

(for example: one pitfall is a greater temptation to assume that I've got the culture nailed down, now that I've done my archaeology degree; thus dignifying my cultural insights with too much weight in the interpretive process)

My point is that there is enough cultural information to be found in the text for us to be getting on with. Could you name one substantial piece of interpretation that hinges on extra-biblical knowledge of how shepherds operated in first century Galilee? Could you name one substantial piece of interpretation that requires knowledge of first century marriage practices? I mean, knowledge that is not already there in the bible.

---

quote:

---

But I would counter that no-one can pay careful attention to Ephesians 5 and the way Christ treated his church, and come away thinking that it is automatically right to deny mortgages or employment to women—much less be violent towards wives— simply and only on the grounds that they are to submit! That in itself is a textual distortion.

---

quote:

---

Note also how we have various indications that Christian discipleship means radically standing against prevailing cultural norms, no matter how bizarre this will appear. Eg.

quote:

---

Luke 22:25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
Luke 22:26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
Luke 22:27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

---

If the husband is in any sense a leader in the marriage, then here is an example where the husband may not simply pick up prevailing social mores and apply them to the marriage, but must do the exact opposite.

---

quote:

---

So, we must struggle with the principles stated by Paul and how to rework them into their contemporary application. We are not free to insist that Paul was simply endorsing a slightly more enlightened version of first-century culture, as a cultural model that must be ossified into the church for all time.

---

quote:

---

I think I am still waiting for you to define what you mean by "inferiority". You have given examples; examples which I deny are what the bible had in mind when it teaches submission. But you still seem to be insisting that submission will and must equate to inferiority. True, or have I got that wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Headship can only be properly understood in the wider context of the roles of men and women under God.

---

quote:

---

There comes a point, and I thought I'd made it before, that all the words about women being the equal of men whilst at the same time being subject to them ring hollow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:


To submit (= place under) means one is the boss and one is the underling. Good Christian people will deny that implies any value judgment or any inequality but that doesn't get over the fact that one can tell the other what to do and expect to be obeyed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Gordon,

A reply to an earlier post I haven't been able to get around to before now. I drafted this before your description of your own marriage which I thank you for. As Coot says, it sounds lovely, but I don't quite see how it would be different without the view you take on headship. Sounds like a great Christian marriage between equals to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
Of course there's always a danger in using your brain when reading but the important thing is to know when you are bringing things to the text and when the text itself supports it. Tell me, do you have a mental picture of the buildings and landscape of the bible? How much of that comes from seeing pictures and photographs?

---

I keep seeing bitumen roads and motorbikes, and people dressed like they stepped off the set of Life of Brian

quote:

---

an example of the extensive and crucial use of extra-biblical knowledge, and that's in translating the original text of the bible. We have dozens of translations, each one an attempt better to convey what was originally meant and to be closer to the spirit of the original. Isn't it odd if the translator is allowed to refer to other literature of the time to get at the meaning of the original but the reader of the translation isn't?

---

quote:

---

Don't you know that for the best part of 2000 years the admonitions in the epistles have been used to justify such behaviour towards women?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by me:

So, we must struggle with the principles stated by Paul and how to rework them into their contemporary application. We are not free to insist that Paul was simply endorsing a slightly more enlightened version of first-century culture, as a cultural model that must be ossified into the church for all time.

---

then riposted by you:
Thanks. That will do for my argument about the difference between conservative evangelical treatment of scriptural references to headship and homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Weed:

Inferiority is a handy word in an argument, isn't it? It can mean both a plain statement of fact as to the relationship between boss and underling (one a superior and one an inferior), or when talking about an inanimate object that has more functions than another, and both those meanings are devoid of value judgements. It can also mean of lesser worth which is why, although we may still use the word superior at work (and supervisor and superintendent) we tend not to use the word inferior in case we are mistaken as to what we mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
But that takes us back to the ascripted authority bit. Blair's authority doesn't rest on the fact that he is white, male, straight or middle class (although being realistic none of them hurt)but because he has a mandate from the British people and is first Minister of HM Queen Elizabeth II.

What Weed is objecting to is an institutionalised ascripted role for people based on their gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
I think the way you describe you and your wife's interaction sounds lovely (really); but this isn't the impression the Dr. Dobsons of the world give to the rest of us about how these verses are to be understood and practiced!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is a marriage between equals. And I'm the head of the household.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:


Now we live in a society under rule of law that forbids violent imposition of will, women have been able to demonstrate that our physical differences do not infer necessary difference in capability in any other area of personhood. That sections of Christianity still cow-tow to the I guess understandable if indefensible reaction of some men to the loss of preferential access to power, devising these bizarre justifications that somehow this is part of God's plan, is an afront to the God-ness in humanity and the nature of our Creator. It's defending the indefensible.

Time to grow up and move on, I think.

---

Yes. Indeed. I believe in headship because I find emancipated women immensely threatening.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
It is a marriage between equals. And I'm the head of the household.

---

If it's a marriage of equals, what room is there for a head? If there is a head, then one of you is unequal. Or do you use the word "head" in a different way to the bulk of the English speaking world?

Of course, in a marriage both partners are equal but different. There may well be, and probably is, a difference in ability such that if (for example) there needs to be some wiring done then it makes sense to let the person more capable of that get on with it. But I can't think of anything bar breast feeding babies where there is an inherent difference between husband and wife that would make it normal for one sex rather than the other to fill any particular role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It is really evident that you are absolutely determined to see this pejoratively. You may, if you wish take the idea of submission to mean inequality, despite the adherents of that position assuring you it is not. All I can say is I consider Tony Blair my equal even though I must do what he says in a far more binding way than you would see in any church or family relationship. I could choose to see the fact that I submit to Tony as a sign that he is superior to me, but only if I was determined to see my own self worth defined on the basis of the power I wield.

I don't. So he isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
A reply to an earlier post I haven't been able to get around to before now. I drafted this before your description of your own marriage which I thank you for. As Coot says, it sounds lovely, but I don't quite see how it would be different without the view you take on headship. Sounds like a great Christian marriage between equals to me.

---

Well, this is something, at least. It is a marriage between equals. And I'm the head of the household. It seems to me that you acknowledge here that a conservative view of headship can work out in a way that doesn't demean the wife. Or is it your claim that I've misapplied the Bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed: an example of the extensive and crucial use of extra-biblical knowledge, and that's in translating the original text of the bible. We have dozens of translations, each one an attempt better to convey what was originally meant and to be closer to the spirit of the original. Isn't it odd if the translator is allowed to refer to other literature of the time to get at the meaning of the original but the reader of the translation isn't?

---

Both translator and reader are free to range around doing their cultural studies thang, as I keep saying. It's just that their conclusions are necessarily tentative; liable to be over-ridden not just by new cultural findings but by careful re-reading of the text in the light of the rest of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Don't you know that for the best part of 2000 years the admonitions in the epistles have been used to justify such behaviour towards women? A problem which I explain in terms of

*sin and/or

*an over-generalisation about what has been supposed to be done in the name of Christianity while ignoring examples where Christianity has stood against the culture and/or

* a judging of the last 2000 years of culture by the narrow standards of feminism in the late 20th century, which may themselves be open to question as to their rightness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

then riposted by you:
Thanks. That will do for my argument about the difference between conservative evangelical treatment of scriptural references to headship and homosexuality.

---

Very naughty indeed Weed. You slid past the bit where I argued that the reason for this conclusion came from other parts of the Bible that addressed the subject of leadership; so making it appear as if I was appealing to a cultural reason for changing the interpretation of the text. Full marks for trying, though!

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Weed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Inferiority is a handy word in an argument, isn't it? It can mean both a plain statement of fact as to the relationship between boss and underling (one a superior and one an inferior), or when talking about an inanimate object that has more functions than another, and both those meanings are devoid of value judgements. It can also mean of lesser worth which is why, although we may still use the word superior at work (and supervisor and superintendent) we tend not to use the word inferior in case we are mistaken as to what we mean.

---

Yes, we are certainly beginning from different ends of the definition. You believe that someone becomes inferior/superior by virtue of occupying a particular role; or having or lacking certain abilities; or having a particular level of authority; essentially a functional definition which then reflects back onto the essence of the person. I begin from the point of view that all are essentially equal in the eyes of God, and that equality can't be compromised by the having of different abilities, roles, or levels of authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I find it interesting that nobody has brought out the fact that when Paul says the man is the "head" of the wife, the word he is using is not arche (leader, ruler) but kephale (physical head).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
[qb] I find it interesting that nobody has brought out the fact that when Paul says the man is the "head" of the wife, the word he is using is not arche (leader, ruler) but kephale (physical head).

---

Well, I never mentioned it because I didn't know that. It is useful bit of information.

I like the analogy with the "head" being the squaddie who takes the lead position, rather than (say) an officer. I still don't see any reason why that has to be the husband and not the wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I find it interesting that nobody has brought out the fact that when Paul says the man is the "head" of the wife, the word he is using is not arche (leader, ruler) but kephale (physical head).

---

quote:

---

the point of contact as regards our image-hood means that we (humans) are fundamentally relational in nature, and that relationship is ultimate reality. That's about as far as I'd want to take it with confidence[/url]

---

Gordon goes on to suggest that 1 Cor 11:3 might go beyond this, but so far the consensus seems to be that the Trinity is just too far beyond our understanding to form a reliable basis on which to extrapolate anything very meaningful in terms of husband/wife relationships.

In addition, don't we need to bear in mind that the Son and the Father are sinless, and we aren't? Submitting to someone perfect is a whole different deal to submitting to someone who's not – and surely that should suggest caution in using a trinity-based argument in favour of headship in marriage?

4) Submission and equality

The headshipmates insist that submission does not compromise equality. Given that appeals to the Trinity seem to have been put on the back burner, doesn't that run into trouble right here:

quote:

---

Ephesians 5:24:
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

---

quote:

---

…man (…) is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

---

quote:

---

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

---

quote:

---

Judge for yourselves

---

quote:

---

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

---

quote:

---

neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

---

quote:

---

Egalitarians claim the word ‘head’ doesn’t mean authority but ‘source’ (ie Adam was the source of Eve). The Greek word is ‘kephale’. I got a list on computer of a wide sample of occurrences of the word kephale in the ancient world – 2,336 examples. In most it just means physical head, such as one soldier cutting off the head of another in battle. I found at least 50 examples of one person being the head of another and it’s always an authority relationship eg the General is the head of the army, the Emperor is the head of the empire. Never in all of Greek literature is there any place where person A is said to be the head of person B and is not in authority over that person.

I have a private letter that I have had permission to publish from Peter Greer from the Bodleian Library in Oxford where he has been working as a lexicographer for 52 years. He is the greatest living expert on ancient Greek words. I met him last week. He says in this letter the meaning for kephale as ‘source’ does not exist.

---

Grudem is about as fussy and punctilious a scholar as they come on details like this. The source of the "kephale = source" misunderstanding was traced, possibly by him, to a single unsubstantiated footnote in the work of a leading evangelical scholar (I think I know his name but I won't take the risk of getting it wrong here), subsequently cited without checking by a large number of people since. That is, until Grudem did his thing with the 2336 examples of the word 'kephale' in ancient Greek literature. All I can imagine is that when Grudem and said scholar meet in heaven, said scholar will slap him upside of the head for being such an annoying little git for having chased this issue through

Also in that article that TUC linked, you will find the argument 1 Corinthians 11:3 used to linking the doctrine of the trinity to the question of headship and submission.

I will be away on conferences for a few days and need to do some prep too, so the flow of my responses on this thread will slow down a bit — apologies in advance. Eutychus, thank you for your helpful summation of the issues to this point.
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I'm curious - in what context does my wearing jeans or trousers signify a rebellion against the created order and an attempt to usurp male authority?

---

It's very hard to think of examples because most of the time, we wear clothes for fashion, comfort, vanity, perceived attractiveness, functionality and so on. It's unusual to wear clothing to make a deliberate ideological statement; something which may have been going on at Corinth judging by by Paul's reaction to it.

Back in the '70s there used to be a fashion style which was broadly described as Unisex, which meant that men and women dressed almost identically, and deliberately so. This may have been ideologically motivated in some cases, and if so, would be an example. Or it might just be yet another sign that the 70s was the decade that fashion forgot. Or not, if you liked that kind of thing.

---

OK, I get it. It’s probably not wrong that I’m currently wearing mostly men’s clothing, since I’m doing so because men’s clothing is cheaper and more comfortable than women’s clothing.

OTOH, when I decided that the junior/senior prom racket was something I was no longer willing to participate in and borrowed a set of tails from a friend (leaving my boyfriend to work out what he was going to wear), I was almost certainly sinning.

And on Friday night, when I will probably wear a certain kind of trousers to indicate my participation in a certain subculture, I may or may not be sinning, depending on whether or not that subculture is trying to rebel against the natural order.

How perfectly clear.

Actually, given your other posts on this thread, I suspect we may not be on the same wavelength here. When I hear ‘headship,’ I tend to think of my grandmother, who would listen to the opinion of my adolescent brother over the opinion of my mother because he was a male.

FWIW, most of my decisions involve reasonable compromises between involved parties, but I will happily submit to anyone who has demonstrated that they both know more about the subject at hand and are willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their decision. Those people are few and far between.
 

---

Posted by Gordon Cheng (# 8895) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

Actually, given your other posts on this thread, I suspect we may not be on the same wavelength here. When I hear ‘headship,’ I tend to think of my grandmother, who would listen to the opinion of my adolescent brother over the opinion of my mother because he was a male.

---

You are quite right, saysay, that is not what I had in mind, and I will stick my neck out and venture to suggest that it's not what the Bible had in mind either.

Makes me wonder if the grandmother you mention was your mother's mother-in-law. The in-law issue a whole 'nother set of inter-relationships that make the husband-wife question look as easy as working out that, say, the Beatles were the greatest rock group of this age or indeed of any age (an axiomatic truth)
 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
No, it wasn’t an in-law problem.

My grandmother believed that a wife should submit to her husband. This view was extended out to the belief that women, in general, should submit to men (a view encouraged by her church’s hierarchy and leadership).

No, that probably wasn’t the Bible's original intent. However, it was a very real consequence of a certain reading.
 

---

Posted by Avalon (# 8094) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

However the next Archbishop of Sidney, we can predict with a high degree of certainty, will be male. As will the next Dean. As will, unless a miracle happens, the clergy in that diocese be. Now, like the Order of the Garter, this privileging of maleness as a necessary ground for wielding authority has no damn merit in it. It is arbitrary. We know that men are not intrinsically wiser, kinder, more holy, cleverer, better at liturgy, better at pastoral care etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam.

So why male headship unless females are somehow ontologically inferior?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
.... as easy as working out that, say, the Beatles were the greatest rock group of this age or indeed of any age (an axiomatic truth)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Isn't this all really a hangover from a time before "civilisation" when survival was primarily dependent on physical attributes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I have a great deal of respect for the Orthodox model of marriage, partially based in St. Paul's description, but informed over a great deal of time by Orthodox tradition. But (turning the question around), is the Orthodox vision what St. Paul was talking about? I'm not sure it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
[QUOTE]See, the way we understand Tradition, is that it's organic, it doesn't change, but it grows. So you would find, in the Holy Scriptures, a seed, as it were, the very beginnings of an idea. [...]
Of course, the whole process, the development of Holy Tradition, is under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth. He didn't hand it all over at once, fully formed -- he directed the process, which is one of synergy between God and man. (Synergy is not an idea which is familiar in the Western church, but it is an absolutely vital concept in Orthodoxy.)

---

Wow. I mean it. Every time I think I've got a handle on Orthodoxy, you guys surprise me.

Quakerism + Catholicism + a little Sufi = Orthodoxy.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I find this thread unreal - like stepping into the pages of Alice in Wonderland!

It doesn't accord with anything in my own experience.

[...]

Moreover, I've never heard the subject so much as mentioned by any of my Christian friends or acquaintances, or by anyone at all in my Christian life.

---

I'm with you here. All this is simply not a live issue for me or anyone I know in my generation.

It would not have been for my parents either - both born well before WW2. I never met my grandfathers, but I strongly suspect that my mother's father, born in Glasgow the 1870s, would have regarded the idea as something we had grown out of. (I have very little knowledge of my other grandparents)

There are plenty of men who boss their wives and girlfriends around (or try to). And some who beat them up. But theuy don't turn to the Bible to justify their actions, never mind use words like "headship" or "ontological". NO-ONE I ever meet talks like this in real life. And if they live like this, they do it where I don't see them.

I think I've known more people who were het up about whether 5th century BC hoplites held their spears overarm or underarm than I have who argued about this stuff.

And in 30-odd years attending evangelical churches I don't remember ever hearing it preached - the party line is definitly that it is all about love and mutual sacrifice (which, I agree, is probably anachronistic and not at all what Paul meant)
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
A little sufi?
 

---

Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 
I was surprised to say the least by Gordon's remark about

quote:

---

a judging of the last 2000 years of culture by the narrow standards of feminism in the late 20th century, which may themselves be open to question as to their rightness.

---

quote:

---

Question 41. Why do you bring up homosexuality when discussing male and female role distinctions in the home and the church (as in question 1)? Most evangelical feminists are just as opposed as you are to the practice of homosexuality.

Answer: We bring up homosexuality because we believe that the feminist minimization of sexual role differentiation contributes to the confusion of sexual identity that, especially in second and third generations, gives rise to more homosexuality in society...To us it is increasingly and painfully clear that Biblical feminism is an unwitting partner in unravelling the fabric of complementary manhood and womanhood that provides the foundation not only for Biblical marriage and Biblical church order, but also for heterosexuality itself.

---

quote:

---

Question 9. Don't you think that stressing headship and submission gives impetus to the epidemic of wife abuse?

Answer: No. ... Second, we believe that wife abuse (and husband abuse) have some deep roots in the failure of parents to impart to their sons and daughters the meaning of true masculinity and true femininity. The confusions and frustrations of sexual identity often explode in harmful behaviors. The solution to this is not to minimize gender differences (which will then break out in menacing ways), but to teach in the home and the church how true manhood and womanhood express themselves in the loving and complementary roles of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
I hadn't heard of Grudem and Piper before either so I decided to see what they said. (Apologies if everyone else is aware of them and I'm the last to know.)

---

quote:

---

So deep is their commitment to an egalitarian view of men and women in marriage that they will tamper with the doctrine of the Trinity if necessary to maintain it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

Also in that article that TUC linked, you will find the argument 1 Corinthians 11:3 used to linking the doctrine of the trinity to the question of headship and submission.

---

Ah, so 1 Cor 11:3 is up for debate now ? Does this mean you are willing to go further down the line than to say, as you did on the subordination thread, that the only bearing the Trinity has on human relationships is to say that God is a relational being?

If so, I would like to know how you, or other headshipmates, propose to translate 1 Corinthians 11:3. Are you going to go with the ESV which says:

quote:

---

The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband…"

---

quote:

---

The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man…"

---

quote:

---

Well I'm the same generation as Ken (forty something) and I'm as surprised that he's never come across this sort of teaching, as he and Scoticanus seem to be by their amazement at this being discussed.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, no matter what anyone says in this context about women being "equal but different", the fact is that I grew up believing that I was an incompleted man in the eyes of God.

---

So much must depend on one's own personal experience, and I dare say yours was much more typical than mine. Our extended family, however, was matriarchal; the women tended to be more gifted and successful than the men, who to me as a child seemed merely to be kind and well-meaning adjuncts! My father was less well educated and less successful in life than his sister, and the same pattern repeated itself with my sister and me - she had great artistic gifts and was feted both in the family and in our home town as something of a celebrity, whereas I was a plodder. I could go on and cite many more examples from family history and background, but (in essence) the view I was brought up with was that women were "special" in a way that men weren't, and it was the job of men to help and support them.

My feeling is that this sort of ethos was more common in Scots families than in the Middle West of the USA. My male peers tended to have strong, interesting mothers, and gentler, quiet fathers who were gently patronised

I have no hesitation in finishing by saying that my wife is more intelligent than I am!
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I've never heard the subject so much as mentioned by any of my Christian friends or acquaintances, or by anyone at all in my Christian life.

---

I'm with you here. All this is simply not a live issue for me or anyone I know in my generation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
All this is simply not a live issue for me or anyone I know in my generation.

---

Then everyone you know has managed to miss out on the teachings of Bill Gothard, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, et al.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Seeker963, every sympathy. I fear your story may be dismissed by some as "anecdotal experience which only serves to prove that we just haven't applied the doctrine of headship and submission properly even after 2000 years of trying..."

---

quote:

---

Then everyone you know has managed to miss out on the teachings of Bill Gothard, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, et al.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scoticanus:
I've spent 40 years devouring all sorts of books about the Faith and I've never heard of any of these people!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
And also the whole point of headship is not that they "win", but that they are meant to love as Christ loved. Both partners win if the relationship works properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
What would you do if your wife refused to accept either your religious teaching on a certain matter or your decision on a domestic one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Find out why and work to effect a compromise. Why do you ask?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
That's fine and dandy but where's the headship? Wouldn't you do exactly the same if there was no doctrine of headship operating?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
if she really really didn't want it that way, then I'd hope we'd talk about it and either come to a compromise or I'd lovingly let her have what she wanted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Because I'd expect her to do what I decided in the end; I'd expect to be the one making the decisions

---

quote:

---

I suspect your issue is that submission to a loving husband doesn't seem like an especially big deal.

---

quote:

---

I'd imagine it's much easier to submit to a loving husband than to an unloving one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
That's fine and dandy but where's the headship? Wouldn't you do exactly the same if there was no doctrine of headship operating?

---

Because I'd expect her to do what I decided in the end; I'd expect to be the one making the decisions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
if she really really didn't want it that way, then I'd hope we'd talk about it and either come to a compromise or I'd lovingly let her have what she wanted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
Because I'd expect her to do what I decided in the end; I'd expect to be the one making the decisions

---

This does not compute, Captain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I can lovingly make the decision to do what she wants to do, not what I would otherwise want to do - to do things her way, not my way. Still my decision.

---

quote:

---

I don't think Jesus came to teach equality. I think he came to teach, and effect, salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I can lovingly make the decision to do what she wants to do, not what I would otherwise want to do - to do things her way, not my way. Still my decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Out of interest, what is the Promise Keepers view on all this headship business?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'd rather people be in a loving egalitarian relationship than an unhealthily controlling hierarchical one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If a woman is capable of being her own "head" on her own, what changes when she gets married? Absolutely nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
[qb]But that isn't remotely what most people mean by "submission" which implies - no, more than that it states - taht one person obeys the orders of the other.

So what you are really saying is "we have a special Christian relationship between husband and wife that we call 'submission' but isn't really." And "headship" and "submission" just become obscure bits of jargon that are meaningless to most people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Responding to an earlier general question from Weed, it's been years since I've read Grudem thoroughly but he is a careful scholar and I agreed with many of the things he said at the time. I'll have to look more carefully at the Danvers declaration before I make any specific comment, but I would say that theologically and exegetically, Grudem is an able exponent of his position and worth reading even if you don't agree with what he says.

Now I really am going away for a couple of days, as promised!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


(I'm also awaiting your response to my claim that 1 Tim 2:12, on the reading these guys gives it, looks like pretty strong evidence for submission on the basis of inferiority (see here).)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I agree with MT here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
And also the whole point of headship is not that they "win", but that they are meant to love as Christ loved. Both partners win if the relationship works properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Prior to Jesus, the message of salvation was - in effect - "Only Jews (converts included, but conversion required) can be saved".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:


(I'm also awaiting your response to my claim that 1 Tim 2:12, on the reading these guys gives it, looks like pretty strong evidence for submission on the basis of inferiority (see here).)

---

What are you asking for Eutychus? An interpretation of this verse that allows it not to be about inferiority (which I'm sure you must have heard before)?

---

quote:

---

When "aner" is used in conjunction with "gunaikos", it tends to mean "husband"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard.:
I can't find any verse in the NT where both words are used without the implication of marriage (except for possibly 1 Cor 11, which is what this discussion is about and 1 Tim 2:12, which would make me think that "husband" and "wife" would be the preferred translation there too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seeker963:
Prior to Jesus, the message of salvation was - in effect - "Only Jews (converts included, but conversion required) can be saved".

---

Slightly off-topic but lots of the prophets talk of God redeeming the Gentiles. Especially Isaiah who rather seems to like the Egyptians and Persians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Such difficulties are one of the reasons I no longer subscribe to this view. I'm open to being convinced back again, but so far, it ain't happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Not aimed particularly at you Eutychus, but this does make me wonder what life is like for women whose husbands change their minds about headship, whether they give up on the idea or embrace it after having already gotten married.

---

I'll happily give my take on this (Mrs. E may have a different view!).

Yes, Mrs. E promised to obey in our wedding vows (she is constantly reminding me that I promised to cherish, and 20 years on I'm still not sure I've worked out what that means ). The nature of what we've done with our lives has indeed meant that as things stand, her life is pretty well bound up with mine, to the extent that she sacrificed her career prospects, independent pension rights, and so on, to join me in what we both felt we were called to do.

On a day-to-day level, I would like to think our relationship has mostly been one of those "diet headship" ones where really most things get decided by mutual consent.

(I think Mrs. E holds that notwithstanding this, I still tend to think, like Custard, that my decision should prevail in the end...)

As a corollary, I think I do aim to carry the can for those decisions. As a practical example of this, in the company we've recently set up, Mrs E does as much work as me but because of the way we are set up (which was really a financial consideration at the time) it's my name on the bills and everything else. This means that if someone were to sue for malpractice, for instance, it's entirely my responsibility even if the mistake was hers, and I fully accept that.

This thread has sparked off a lot of discussion in the Euty couple. For my part, I think it's fair to say that even if I pride myself on being very egalitarian-minded, I keep stumbling across huge blind spots of prejudice in my worldview, which is a humbling experience.

I think we have a good marriage, we are certainly grateful for the relationship we have when it's so hard for so many. But as our children grow up and we consider what kind of relationships they might embark on, neither of us would recommend the sacrificing of independence which Mrs E has made for the sake of our marriage, and which I think grew out of our views of headship at the time.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Being ummarried (and headless?) I've always been intrigued to see how different Christian couples, who believe in the headship of the man in the family, work it out.

For one couple it meant that the father decided which schools the kids went to; which church everyone attended; where holidays were spent (big expenditure of money, so therefore a decision for the head of the family); what kind of clothes the teenage daughter wore (because she was living under his roof).

For a couple who held the same Biblical belief in Paul's teaching it was so different. Anything to do with children - including schools - was the mother's decision (woman's work). Church concerns were also down to the mother because it was 'traditional' to follow the mother's denomination. And managing the finances, especially anything budgeted for the house was also her job, because the household was her domain and responsibility.

Yet, both couples believed absolutely that the father was the head of the household in a properly prescribed Biblical fashion.

Had the second husband sinfully abdicated his rightful headship over his family in allowing a woman to run the household and make such big decisions; or had he wisely delegated authority to his spouse? Or had he even recognized that she was better at those things than he was and simply had the common sense to let her get on with it?
 

---

Posted by Weed (# 4402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Of course, this is where the inferiority monster rears it's head in the discussion, because ISTM some people here think that one cannot give up some of one's rights for the purpose of modelling something higher without acknowlegding or admitting some sort of inferiority. That, to me, seems to be much more a cultural assupmtion (of a supposedly "rights" based Western liberal democracy, in this case) than that of male headship at the time Paul was writing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's a limit to how far even the most brilliant of thinkers can go and still have an audience listening to them. Even today visionaries for equal rights for homosexuals are painted as dangerous liberals by many parts of society. If Jesus or Paul had preached a message of equality for all in the way we'd like to see it today (ie: in more practical terms than generic platitudes about there being no differences for we are one in Christ) then they'd have lost almost all their followers (if not all of them) with them being decried as lunatics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin - and I wouldn't want to define practice between Christians based on a penalty for sin that Christ has paid for us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
Inferiority - not allowed to do certain things that men are simply because of gender. thats inferiority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
That people have different roles in marriage is unexceptionable. To have those roles determined by sex is sexism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
My huge problem with it is that *in context* the passages would have been hugely liberating for women....He was suggesting those in authority actually had a responsibilty to those they are in authority over....In total, it is those teaching that women should have lesser roles than men in todays society that have missed the point of the passages and arent taking them seriously. IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I apologise in advance if this is a simplistic or stupid question.

If Paul gives us guidelines for managing the relationship between slaves and masters alongside guidelines for managing the relationship between husbands and wives, why do we not interperet that as indicating that we ought to keep (or be) slaves? Why is the lack of (legal) slavery in the UK not considered another sign of fallenness (as someone described uppity women)?

Or rather - even if we decide slavery is inappropriate for us, it's not compulsory after all any more than marriage! - by what authority would we assume the right to stop others from doing it?

If the social and political morality of slavery can be rethought without violating Paul, why can't the same rethinking apply to male\female relationships?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Carys points out, rightly, that when people talk about headship, they immediately start talking about whether or not a woman has to submit to her husband, what that entails, and so on and so forth. But that's the wrong place to start.
<snip>

Headship is not about submissive wives. It is about loving husbands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Levor:
Headship is not about submissive wives. It is about loving husbands.

---

quote:

---

My only quibble is the absolute negation "it is not about submissive wives". If it is about loving husbands, it may also be about submissive wives. Because in the Bible love and authority are often welded together and submission is the reception of both.

---

quote:

---

If being a 'leader' and being a slave is the same thing for Christians, after the model of Christ, then it has a radical different quality.

---

quote:

---

And if the stress on headship is on the husband loving the wife as Christ loved the church, then the parallel suggests some kind of authority being in the mix, doesn't it?

---

Yes, it does. But the authority, and the submission, have, as you note, a radically different quality from that which is normally understood by those words. So, as is so often the case in Orthodox theology, we find it necessary to say what we mean by saying what it is not before we can say what it is.

[ 14. April 2005, 04:45: Message edited by: josephine ]
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Sorry for the messed up code in the last post! The new security upgrades are preventing popup windows from working at all, so I can't preview posts from this machine. If a kindly host can fix it, that would be wonderful. And if not, I'll just be embarrassed.
 

---

Posted by Levor (# 5711) on :
 
Josephine, thank you for the extra insight. I think then that I would pretty well unreservedly sign off on what you're saying as what I think my understanding of Scripture is too. Can you see any differences in what I'm saying that you'd want me to rethink carefuly from your perspective?

I'm going away for a few days, so I'll add in my thoughts on the next couple of pages of the discussion now as my window is shrinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
And would you like to respond to the view also posted earlier in which somemone gives the example of Miss Smith, acknowledged by an office manager 'who makes everything work round here and who I would be lost without', and who despite this verbal accolade is in actual fact treated as an inferior, 'subordinate' in every practical sense of the term? She may have an equal status in principle, but in practice she does not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
But that takes us back to the ascripted authority bit. Blair's authority doesn't rest on the fact that he is white, male, straight or middle class (although being realistic none of them hurt)but because he has a mandate from the British people and is first Minister of HM Queen Elizabeth II.

What Weed is objecting to is an institutionalised ascripted role for people based on their gender. All societies have people in authority, even the church. Generally, however, in industrial society, that authority derives, at least ostensibly, from merit in some kind of form. If Tony Blair continues to have the same authority on May 6 this will be because he has persuaded a large part of the electorate that this is a desirable outcome.

However the next Archbishop of Sidney, we can predict with a high degree of certainty, will be male. As will the next Dean. As will, unless a miracle happens, the clergy in that diocese be. Now, like the Order of the Garter, this privileging of maleness as a necessary ground for wielding authority has no damn merit in it. It is arbitrary. We know that men are not intrinsically wiser, kinder, more holy, cleverer, better at liturgy, better at pastoral care etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseam.

So why male headship unless females are somehow ontologically inferior?

---

I think this reflects just how different our starting point has become from that of Scripture. I see the headship issue less as closely related to being CEO or elected head of state, and more like the relationship of parents and children.

Parents aren't necessarily wiser or smarter or more knowledgable than their adult children. And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way. I owe my father and mother honour in a way that they don't owe me. Even now, there is a way that they can disagree with me that is not there for me to do in how I indicate my disagreement with them. It has to do with something about what it means to be a in a parent-child relationship and it has little to do with merit.

I think this is a better starting analogy then the ones you are putting forward, Callan. Is there something about the nature of familial relationships that mean that children honour parents, irrespective of relative merits, and that husbands love wives (which includes an authority component) while wives receive that love (drawing on Josephine's posts again)? That is more where I think the question should start.

While you are getting off tangent with another swipe at Sydney one might then argue that as the Church is the household of God, then Church roles might then parallel family dynamics, rather than business or country ones.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
3): The Godhead as an example of submission

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading the Trinity and Subordinationism thread, it would appear, somewhat to my surprise, that even the most headship-favourable Shipmates are loth to draw a direct parallel between the submission of the Son to the Father and a wife's submission to her husband <snip>:

quote:

---

the point of contact as regards our image-hood means that we (humans) are fundamentally relational in nature, and that relationship is ultimate reality. That's about as far as I'd want to take it with confidence[/url]

---

Gordon goes on to suggest that 1 Cor 11:3 might go beyond this, but so far the consensus seems to be that the Trinity is just too far beyond our understanding to form a reliable basis on which to extrapolate anything very meaningful in terms of husband/wife relationships.

---

quote:

---

In addition, don't we need to bear in mind that the Son and the Father are sinless, and we aren't? Submitting to someone perfect is a whole different deal to submitting to someone who's not – and surely that should suggest caution in using a trinity-based argument in favour of headship in marriage?

---

quote:

---

4) Submission and equality

The headshipmates insist that submission does not compromise equality. Given that appeals to the Trinity seem to have been put on the back burner, doesn't that run into trouble right here:

quote:

---

Ephesians 5:24:
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

---

Would it not follow in this case that the Church is equal to Christ?

---

quote:

---

2) What difference does headship make?

After having read the whole of this thread, I'm with those who say that I can see very little practical difference between the "egalitarians" and the "headshipmates" in terms of how their marriages work.

---

quote:

---

1) What's the biblical evidence for this concept?

I think it's fairly safe to say we're mainly talking about Paul's writings in 1 Cor 11, Eph 5, and perhaps 1 Tim 2.

---

quote:

---

...but what do you make of Paul suddenly going back on himself in the verses 11-12?

quote:

---

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

---

---

quote:

---

and then throwing appeals to eternal principles to the winds with an exasperated verse 13

quote:

---

Judge for yourselves

---

---

quote:

---

before finishing with an almost sulky verse 16

quote:

---

If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

---

---

quote:

---

Just to make things worse before I leave this passage, doesn't the argument specifically in favour of head coverings in verses 9-10

quote:

---

neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

---

sound suspiciously like a "creational argument" of precisely the thought headshipmates think should not be discarded as merely "cultural"?

---

quote:

---

To conclude: I was once a staunch Grudem/Piper man on these issues. The whole story of how I came to call that into question will have to wait, but suffice it to say that I now think that to attempt build such immutable principles on such difficult passages, given the attested historical abuse of such positions by men, and a whole load of other evidence, is surely the last kind of area in which we should presume to advance with dogmatism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Levor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's a limit to how far even the most brilliant of thinkers can go and still have an audience listening to them. Even today visionaries for equal rights for homosexuals are painted as dangerous liberals by many parts of society. If Jesus or Paul had preached a message of equality for all in the way we'd like to see it today (ie: in more practical terms than generic platitudes about there being no differences for we are one in Christ) then they'd have lost almost all their followers (if not all of them) with them being decried as lunatics.

---

Are you suggesting that claiming to Greeks that there was to be a resurrection of the body would have been less outrageous? Or to Jews that God's plan was for his Messiah was to be hung on a tree?

---

quote:

---

I think this is a really long bow, Alan. When Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because their hearts were hard (Matt 19:1-12) and then reasserted the original Genesis 2 intention for marriage I don't think he was simply indicating that culture had shifted enough to enable a 'no divorce' marriage to be intellectually entertainable. He was indicating a fundamental shift in ethics that was taking place as a result of his ministry. What Jesus did has opened up the way for God's people to be good in a way that wasn't possible before.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Interestingly the Genesis accounts don't seem to imply any subservience in the relationship between Adam and Eve. At least, not until after the Fall where God imposes such a subservient role of the woman as a penalty for her sin - and I wouldn't want to define practice between Christians based on a penalty for sin that Christ has paid for us.

---

Actually, I think they do. There are three strands of evidence in the way the narrative works in Genesis 2-3.

---

quote:

---

1. The man is created first and the woman is created from the man, (and Paul points out, the woman is created for the man not vice versa). Man is the source of woman - a derived equality as Divine Outlaw Dwarf has suggested on the Father-Son side of the issue.

---

quote:

---

2. The man names the animals and the woman. Naming in the Bible does have an authority component to it

---

quote:

---

3. When the temptation account is given in chapter three there is an order of animal --> woman --> man. When the judgement account is given there is an order of God --> man --> woman --> animal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Levor:
Parents aren't necessarily wiser or smarter or more knowledgable than their adult children. And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, does it really mean that as adults we can't ever disagree with our parents?

---

quote:

---

Seeing as when his mum came to visit Jesus and tell him to come home and stop being a silly boy (my paraphrase of some Gospel passage or other) he wasn't inclined to just obey her I'd say adults obeying their children isn't the best interpretation of this passage. And, if it's not that simple f. or parent-child relationships then I'd hesitate to apply that to husband-wife.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Neither honoring your parents nor respecting your husband is about unthinking, or unwilling, obedience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
You're right, absolutely. Neither honoring your parents nor respecting your husband is about unthinking, or unwilling, obedience. That's what I've been saying, and Levor, too, as far as I can tell. It's not that at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The impression I got from what Levor posted was that children honouring parents and wives submitting to husbands were analogous, and that honouring parents involved not disagreeing or disobeying

---

quote:

---

And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way. I owe my father and mother honour in a way that they don't owe me. Even now, there is a way that they can disagree with me that is not there for me to do in how I indicate my disagreement with them.

---

quote:

---

I don't actually agree that hnouring of parents means obedience to them or not disagreeing with them.

---

quote:

---

The three special functions, knowing, feeling, and willing, ascribed by modern psychologists to the mind, were attributed to the heart by the Biblical writers (comp. Assyrian "libbu" = "heart," in Delitzsch, "Assyrisches Handwörterb." p. 367). In the Book of Daniel intellectual functions are ascribed not to the head only (Dan. ii. 28; iv. 2, 7, 10 [A. V. 5, 10, 13]; vii. 1, 15), but also to the heart (ib. ii. 30).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
But clearly, given what was meant by the heart, the head can't mean what some modern conservative evangelical Christians think it means.

---

Who are these people, and what do they think it means? I went and looksed at James Dobson's site, and I searched for head and headship, and couldn't find it, and the only reference to submission (apart from "how do i submit my huge gift to this organisation"? ) was with regard to parents and children.

Laura asserted earlier that what "Dobson et al" believe about headship is different from the Orthodox as Josephine described it. I'm not disputing it, but I would like to read for myself what they teach on the issue. Can anyone find me a summary? All I can find are people disagreeing with him.

Or Josephine, are you talking about Piper/Grudem who we discussed above?

[ 14. April 2005, 14:45: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Laura asserted earlier that what "Dobson et al" believe about headship is different from the Orthodox as Josephine described it. I'm not disputing it, but I would like to read for myself what they teach on the issue. Can anyone find me a summary? All I can find are people disagreeing with him.

---

quote:

---

Hardly a day passes when the traditional values of the Judeo-Christian heritage are not blatantly mocked and undermined

---

quote:

---

And the idea that wives should yield to the leadership of their husbands, as commanded in Ephesians 5:21-33 is considered almost medieval in its stupidity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
implying, it seems to me, that Dobson considers that wives "should yield to the leadership of their husbands, as commanded in Ephesians 5:21-33")

---

quote:

---

To the wives of all the world’s punkin eaters, I say, “Go to the Bible study class anyway!” Submission to masculine leadership does not extend, in my opinion, to behaviors that will be unhealthy for the husband, the wife and the marriage. Nor should a woman tolerate child abuse, child molestation or wife-beating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I read each of the marriage articles on the Dobson site and they all assume or encourage traditional gender roles as if that were a key part of how God wants marrried men & women to be.

---

God's favourite sitcom was "Leave it to Beaver" because the gender roles were so proper and right.
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm not trying to be facetious, but I just want to know what it is that people are disagreeing with here - because it seems like it may be the caricature of a position. I have seen little, if anything in Josephine's description of headship that Piper/Grudem (and now add Dobson) would seem to disagree with.

---

quote:

---

The minister behind Character First! is Bill Gothard, 65, whose Institute for Basic Life Principles is based in Chicago. Gothard says more than 2.5 million people nationwide have attended his seminars.
Gothard has centered his teachings on the aspect of authority. He instructs his followers to obey all authority figures -- parents, bosses and political leaders -- because those figures are ordained by Christ.

---

quote:

---

He instructs his followers to obey all authority figures -- parents, bosses and political leaders -- because those figures are ordained by Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
As the Orthodox view is stated, it doesn't have anything to do with having the traditional working man/stay at home wife model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Custard: I'm not addressing your views, but Dobson's, who states quite clearly that that's the desirable model.

---

• Divorce is messy and bad, especially for the kids.
• Pray about stuff.
• Be careful - don't rush into marriage. Lots of refs to Desmond Morris (not exactly a pro-headship person).
• Emotional "bonding" is important during courtship.
• Stages of intimacy in relationship (with some guidelines as to what is appropriate pre-marriage).
• Importance of taking time over relationships.
• Suggestions for how to decide who to marry (if anyone)
• Importance of deciding beforehand to keep marriage vows (but still no mention of headship or obedience).

I was surprised. I was genuinely expecting something about gender roles in relationships, but there was absolutely nothing....
 

---

Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
er - so not only do I agree with custard... but agree with dobson too?!!
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Custard:

I really don't understand the argument you're making. I think anyone can agree with that summary you got from Dobson's other book. But that's not all that Dobson has written about the subject. I'm referring to the articles on the website linked to on this thread. They are clear that the traditional model is assumed. And that's all I'm saying.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Levor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emma.:
Inferiority - not allowed to do certain things that men are simply because of gender. thats inferiority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
That people have different roles in marriage is unexceptionable. To have those roles determined by sex is sexism.

---

This is what has encouraged the appeal to the Trinity. There is nothing inferior about the Son. He is as powerful, 'intelligent', knowing, wise etc. as the Father. Yet there is an order where the Son works from the Father and the actions of the Godhead have their source in the Father. It has nothing to do with 'ability' in that raw sense, for the Son is everything the Father is without being Father. It has to do with the nature of the relationship of the Father and the Son.

The Trinity gets pulled in precisely to bring clarity to these kind of absolute statements by Emma and RuthW. It shows that it isn't neccessarily the case that role has to be linked to being - it can be linked to personhood and so both sides in an authority relationship can be equal, even if the relationship has more to do with their personhood than their 'merit'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Levor:
I see the headship issue less as closely related to being CEO or elected head of state, and more like the relationship of parents and children.

Parents aren't necessarily wiser or smarter or more knowledgable than their adult children. And yet the Bible holds up a honour that the children owe their parents that is not reciprocated in the same way. I owe my father and mother honour in a way that they don't owe me. Even now, there is a way that they can disagree with me that is not there for me to do in how I indicate my disagreement with them. It has to do with something about what it means to be a in a parent-child relationship and it has little to do with merit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
As the Orthodox view is stated, it doesn't have anything to do with having the traditional working man/stay at home wife model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
As the Orthodox view is stated, it doesn't have anything to do with having the traditional working man/stay at home wife model.

---

And yet from what little I know of modern Greece - an overwhelmingly Orthodox country - the man is treated as a god and a king first by his mother and then by his wife (on the insistence of his mother). The home is firmly a woman's domain and everything else belongs to men. I don't know whether there's been a shift away from this in recent years or in the cities but my impression is that there has been a very strong emphasis on traditional roles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weed:
And yet from what little I know of modern Greece - an overwhelmingly Orthodox country - the man is treated as a god and a king first by his mother and then by his wife (on the insistence of his mother). The home is firmly a woman's domain and everything else belongs to men. I don't know whether there's been a shift away from this in recent years or in the cities but my impression is that there has been a very strong emphasis on traditional roles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I suspect this is as much a cultural phenomenon as a religious one. As I said before, it seems to me based on what's been said here that the traditional roles are not inherent in the Orthodox understanding.

---