|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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?
The bible is clear that husbands can be won over by the good behavior of their wives if they [husbands] don't know the Lord.
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".
We all submit to Christ of course, that is a given. Some of you may not like how I chose to handle this in my own life. I handle this by seeking council of more mature Christians in my church. I also wrote in my church membership a request that the elders of my church give a blessing to whomever decides he wants to marry me...since "I have no discernment when it comes to affairs of the heart". I did write that and my request was granted *well, when and IF the time ever comes*. If you knew some of the guys I have dated, you would understand [let's just say I have been told by more than one person that it would make a good movie]. This is my choice for my life, and it may not be right for everybody in my shoes.
Anyway, I need to get to bed. I am so addicted, I came in here after 2 AM...argggh.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
frin
Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9
|
Posted
Snow White,
if your partner isn't feeling called to a headship role, I'm curious that you feel the need to make him accept it.
In my marriage, I know that handing over the casting vote is the cop out policy - if I make Dyfrig make the decision then he will be responsible for it if it's wrong. One of my friends' relationship has formalised this in the (trivial) example of "what do you want to eat?" - whoever asks first forces the decision making process onto the other person. They, like many couples, are both desperate not to be the one in charge of everything.
Handing over control can be easy, but it isn't always fair. I know I use it as a passive aggressive means of avoiding responsibility and keeping the moral highground.
'frin
--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.
Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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.
Not only did married men who followed Jesus around while their spouses stayed home, at least one married woman did also, as this passage in Luke's gospel shows.
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.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Thanks for answering, Birdy.
That headship/submission is a model of relationship makes sense, but given women's demonstrated capabilities, I don't see why it would be preferable to equal, 50/50 partnership. I don't really buy the idea that someone has to cast the deciding vote, either. The whole notion of a deciding vote seems to me like a great way out of having to do the hard work of finding a compromise both partners can live with.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I notice that many people are characterizing the "headship model" as an excuse for someone to cop out of making the hard decisions. 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.
In day-to-day practice, headship/submission is not about decision-making. It is about setting a tone of responsibility and supportiveness. 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
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
I just need to clear things up duchess to streamline future debating sessions with you on these boards: 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".
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?
I haven't had a good repent for ages, and I've built up a goodly amount of hostility that is just dying to be dumped at the foot of the cross. 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.
However, I invite you to come to the 'Will Heaven seem less heavenly if Hell is empty' thread. We need a few more inerrantists and conservative evangelicals who will put the view for a real Hell with real people in it. Sadly at present there is just my lukewarm self, a Jesuit who died in the 1600s and a Crowleyite who wants to go there.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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.
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. I didn't get the impression that duchess was questioning whether anyone was seeking God's guidance, only their likely approach to this passage
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?
I can't speak for duchess or her father, but I have to question your definition of an errantist. Wouldn't the term apply to anyone, Christian or not who does not believe the Bible to be inerrant? And would it not be accurate to say that people who don't know Christ are errantists by definition?
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
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-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
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
Not erroneous, but "culture-bound", which we all are, inescapably.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
A church minister was asking a married couple how they practised headship; the wife answered 'that is easy I make the minor decisions he makes the major ones'
'What kind of decisions are the minor ones?' asked the minister.
' Oh the domestic ones like what time the children get up, when supper is, what school the children go to, where we go on holiday, when we should move house what kind of car we need and how to deal with our will.'
'What decisions does your husband make?'
'Oh the big ones like who should be president, whether the stock market is going to go up or down who is going to win the football and should Britain become part of the euro.'
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
The Coot,
This is a slippery slope I don't feel like stepping out on. (the whole inerrantist/errantist who are Christian thing).
First of all, it is like you are licking your chops hoping I will put my big ol' foot in trap you set forth, so you can let forth all the anger you have at whatever I represent to you. I am not walking into the trap today.
What I will say is my father believes that Jesus was a great man with much to say but he is not the only way to God. My father is not even sure if he believes in God.
I know some people who question what was meant by the bible...who don't take it as literally as I do. They do however confess in Jesus. Their relationship to Him, is a puzzle that is ndefinable by me.
Thankfully salvation belongs to our God not to me. I do not decide who is saved and I can not judge what is definitly in people's hearts.
I gather my opinion of my dad by what he has said to me for decades. There is no fruit in his walk, he does not confess Jesus, he does talk about Him, He pretty much denies His deity...my opinion is he [my dad] does not know Him.
If I want to say more about this, I will take you up on your invitation in the proper thread (don't want to turn this one into another thread).
Scot, you did say it well. Thanks for stepping in.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
note: I meant to type "Their relationship to Him, is a puzzle that is undefinable by me."
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
duchess, if you didn't want to head down that "slippery slope," here are the things you shouldn't have said:
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.
I most assuredly do not study my life and apply it to the Bible.
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).
People who use a method of interpreting the Bible which is different from yours are not picking and choosing - we are reading the whole Bible, and interpreting it differently.
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.
This I already commented upon, and you did not respond.
You are of course perfectly welcome to be an inerrantist, but if you must persist in misrepresenting the views of those of us who are not inerrantists, you had better be prepared to defend your offensive statements.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
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). ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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.
Due to your request Ruth, I will answer your post.
I honestly don't know how every errantist sees the bible. I do know that is the way one errantists sees the bible, my dad because he said so just like that.
Perhaps you might enlighten me on what those stories mean to you. How you respect them
if they are not true. Do you only see the moral at the end of the stories? That they must all be made up examples for us?
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.
You must have a different way of seeing this verse.
Scot has made it clear his marriage works for him. I also explained how one single woman handles this <previous post before this one>. My answer may be strange to you...but it is one explanation.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hagar
Shipmate
# 1338
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 67 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
So my joke was treated with disdain ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ; no one understands me. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hagar:
The complaint I think some people have is how you categorize those who do not think like you.
Exactly.
duchess, I'm not going to go into what I think about Jonah - that's not the point at all. The point is that you have misrepresented my position and that you have continued to misrepresent my position after being told that you are wrong about what I think about the Bible and how I read it. Given that you have said that your father does not "know Christ," I don't see why you have taken his ideas about the Bible as typical of what non-inerrantist Christians think and believe.
I never made any statement on this thread about how I interpret the Bible, so I see no reason to explain or defend my views of the Bible. The issue is your having characterized "errantist" views of the Bible in inaccurate and offensive ways. Your statements are what we're talking about here, and since you don't seem to be able to back them up, you should retract them and apologize.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aardvark
Shipmate
# 2295
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
So my joke was treated with disdain ; no one understands me.
I enjoyed it, Nightlamp.
--------------------
...a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?
Browning
Posts: 618 | From: just outside the M25 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Thank you for this apology.
Since you are puzzled, I'll explain why this bothers me. It belittles my faith and my views of the Bible. If I thought the Bible were nothing more than a bunch of good stories, I would go out to brunch every Sunday instead of to church. I don't read the Bible idly; I don't apply my life to the Bible instead of the other way round (another comment to which I objected). I study the Bible regularly, I take it very seriously, I read a variety of commentaries and other books about the Bible (and not just the "liberal" ones you might expect), and I struggle all the time with what the Bible means for my life. I don't have to be an inerrantist to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
And if you really want a shock, floating in the ship's bilges is an impassioned defense of the Bible I wrote exactly two years ago.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
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! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snow White
Apprentice
# 2390
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 30 | From: Reading | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
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 ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
bird
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Moth, thank you.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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
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
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Louise, may I suggest that "actually subjugating people on the basis of gender" has always been completely unacceptable for a Christian? I understand that this standard has been widely disregarded at various times through history. However, the biblical account of the first-century church and of Jesus Himself show that subjugation of women has never been normal or acceptable for a believer.
By focusing on the "last resort" aspect of this discussion it is easy to overlook the daily enactment of the headship model. I am obligated daily to provide leadership for my family and to act out of sacrificial love for my wife. Her response is an active support which, incidentally, ensures that she is involved with all of the decision-making. It is more about tone and attitude than it is about some sort of "Robert's Rules" for marriage.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
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.
Well, I'd throw in here that many or even most of us would regard the ancient hierarchies as intrinsically abusive. But not all, including me. Trying to avoid salacious jokes here, and much more on all of this can be found on my own Leather Thread, but I am one of the few who don't see things that way, and, yes, the "lifestyle" I live is much more than some sort of game, but a genuine attempt at real, albeit not legally recognised or enforced, fealty, obedience, etc. I don't want to derail this thread, however; just pointing out that not all of us think that way. I'd also say that submission is something all of us, as Christians, are called to, both to God and to earthly rulers, in my understanding. And I should add that the wife's submission to the husband within marriage is not the same as women's submission to men in general. I haven't done a lot of reading on the reign, say, of Elizabeth I, but I'd be curious to see how people handled (even as recently as that) the expected wifely submission in marriage and being obedient to a Queen. (I see no contradiction here, myself.)
David
still trying to follow his own master's teachings, but it's sure not easy
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from Louise:
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.
Louise, how right you are, and your reminders so prove the point that "ignorance is bliss".
In the U.S., many women quickly forget that black men had the right to vote 50 YEARS before women (of any color) did.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
I seem to remember there was a fashion for being a 'submissive wife' on the back of a
best-selling self help book a couple of years ago. You could go on 'submissive wife' workshops. Apparently however there was a get-out clause - if your husband, once made responsible for decision making and leadership of the family, proved himself unworthy of the honour by making naff financial decisions or otherwise abusing his position of trust, the deal was off and you were encouraged trade him in for someone 'worthy' of your submission!
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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
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.
One of the reasons I hesitated so long before posting last time is that I am essentially a feminist at heart. I am as well-educated as my husband, as well-equipped to earn my own living and we regard ourselves as an equal partnership in the challenging task of keeping a household going and bringing up two sons 'within the family of the church'.
My experience of marriage has, I am thankful to say, been wholly positive. I am married to a decent man who loves me and lives by his Christian principles to the best of his ability. I might feel vey different if I were married to someone else!
How far the law ought to reflect Christian beliefs is probably a subject for another thread.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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 ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ). 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 ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
It needn't be read thus. If the husband is rejecting his wife's advice and opinion on every decision they jointly make, then that's not a deciding vote, but a tyranny. "Leadership" in the church is through service, not tyranny. The headship of the husband is a headship of self-sacrifice and leading by example, not of huffy demands for obeisance. A demand for blind obedience is not Christian leadership, but its opposite.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[UBB fixed]
[ 16 July 2002, 22:06: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
I see it very differently. The "deciding vote" is an incredibly heavy burden to bear. It does not conform to the Christian principal of loving your partner if one simply reinforces his (or her) original vote. It goes much further than that. I see it as putting on a different hat, considering afresh all the issues with each possible ramification, and agonizing over whether one argument should win over the other. The burden is that you are totally responsible for all of the outcomes of that decision. Like in Moth's case, that is a very heavy burden indeed.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
Sorry, crossed posts.
If I rewrote your position replacing "husband" with "wife" would you still consider it to be unacceptable? If not, why not? If so, how do you suggest a decision (other than "do nothing and see what happens") gets made?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
from sharkshooter:
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.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
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
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
It is only tyranny if there is no love.
bull*bleep* its tyranny any time one person thinks they know whats best for another person and has the authority to enforce it. no matter what spirit its entered into in. in parenting it results in repressed, smothered children. its no healthier for adults. worse in fact.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
But surely every parent has at times to enforce something that their kids don't want. When Scrambled Eggs was seriously ill, she refused vital medication. What kind of parent would I have been if I had allowed that choice to go unchallenged. And you appear to be automatically labelling every boss a tyrant...
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
but ham n' eggs, we aren't discussing parenting, we're discussing marriage. assuming that a husband has the same authority and responsibility to his wife that a parent does to a child is demeaning and belittling. an adult is not a child.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
oh sorry to double post, but i have to add, yes, you are right to a limited extent regarding parenting. some times there are occasions where a parent must be tyranical. what i was refering to above, i ment when that is the primary method of interaction, not when its an occasional neccesety, it results in repressed, smothered children, even when its done with love.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
Nicole - you were discussing marriage, but then you said
bull*bleep* its tyranny any time one person thinks they know whats best for another person and has the authority to enforce it. no matter what spirit its entered into in. in parenting it results in repressed, smothered children. its no healthier for adults. worse in fact.
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?
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
