|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
do those of you who do not believe in the husband's headship also disbelieve in non-democratic hierarchy in general?
Chast,
consider the difference between a form of hierarchy with a demonstrable reason behind it -
'You two working together on this project are both good people. Joe has more experience in this line of work and if there is a conflict of opinions you should defer to him. He will take responsibility. "
and one based on an arbitrary factor of someone's genetic makeup
" You two working on this project are both good people but Joe has testicles and you don't therefore I'm putting Joe in charge. Why? Because my manual says 'only people with testicles can show leadership'. No I have no reason to think they're any better at the job. It just says that here. If he's less experienced - tough."
There are different forms of hierarchy. Ones based on arbitrary genetic factors such as eye colour, skin colour or sex or sexual orientation are, in my opinion, unjustifiable, except on the grounds of two consenting adults deciding that they want to live their lives that way - that one voluntarily wants to submit to the other because for some personal reason, they have put a value on that otherwise arbitrary factor.
On my own part however I would never advise someone to do this for the good reason, that as I see it, leadership and stuff like sex, skin colour etc. are unconnected. I have seen nothing to prove that there is any valid connection between them.
Being of one sex or the other, for example, doesn't make you a better leader.
So for me its not to do with non democratic hierarchy, but with arbitrary hierarchy.
L.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Or now that I think of it, unjustified hierarchy.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
And who gets to define the standard for the justification?
--------------------
"...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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
How about the person who's being asked to submit?
(so long as they would fall within the usual definitions of a competent adult who can make decisions for themselves and who doesn't have to be restrained in some way from harming others)
After all, as I've already said if people want to consent to do this, that's up to them, it's just that I wouldn't buy it and don't think it's a good idea.
L.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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. This as I said in spite of how many times those who have some sort of "submit" understanding in their marriage reiterate that it is not tyrannous or lording-it-over.
I'm not sure there's a whole lot more this thread can do. We appear to be at the "is not" / "is so" stage.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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
--------------------
“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
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! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
L.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
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.
Firstly, Mousethief that is a 'straw man' and not worthy of your usual reasoned arguments. No-one has said anyone else is 'evil'. The word 'tyranny' has been used only ideologically, no-one has been called 'tyrannous' in their behaviour as described on this thread, and I and others posting an opposite view to yours (and I see we are now a 'faction' not just individuals who disagree with the best arguments you can come up with!) have been very careful NOT to say that our views should apply to anyone else's marriages, I have simply refused to accept that the model of marriage you are positing is more 'Christian' than anyone else's.
Secondly, in order to see how this works in the 'real world' you would have to do a proper survey. People posting here saying anecdotally it works fine or doesn't work fine is not proof of anything. I would imagine those whose marriages are in trouble are less likely to post their personal accounts on a public board than those who are happy.
Among the many marriages I have seen split - usually unexpectedly - there are several Christian couples where this model has been operated to everyone's apparent satisfaction and it has all ended in tears. Sometimes it is the wife who is more unhappy with this model but it has often been decided by the woman that this is how they should run their lives and the man gets fed up with the pressure! I am not saying that the model of 'headship' is what caused the split up in these cases, I am just saying it is not a recipe for a happy marriage. I also know many couples where they have set off with the headship model but the wheels have come off the bus at some point and they have re-set their relationship along different lines.
There are no recipes for happy marriages and most long marriages go through unhappy 'patches' of one sort or another, what gets the partners through those patches is commitment to the promises they made not a particular model.
When I was having my first son, very tired and feeling very weak-willed, I agreed to a procedure that was not in my original birth plan. My husband asked me if I really wanted that and reminded me what I had said while more compos mentis. I took his advice. Not because he was 'head' but I reckoned he was at that point in a better position to judge what was best for me. When I was expecting the first son, my husband was aksed to apply for a job at a very good university in another town and he turned it down without consulting me because he thought it was best for me to stay among my friends. They then rang him up after the closing date and begged him to come for an interview, at which point he told me and said 'but I am not going, it is best for you to stay'. I successfully argued him into applying, which he clearly wanted to do. He got the job and we moved. On the face of it I was supporting his career, in fact he was doing what I had told him to! In this case he recognised that I was the best person to look at the facts objectively.
Inequality between men and women is a consequence of the Fall. Eve was created as a 'helpmeet' for Adam and there is a good argument to say that proves he needed her more than she needed him! Both were partners in the Fall and Eve's subjection was part of her 'sentence' for that crime. Inequality has no place in Christian life, since in Him there is no slave or free man, Jew nor Gentile, male nor female.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Some interesting comments here. Oh well, in with both feet...
I normally have a lot of respect for C. S. Lewis, but in the case of headship and the wife's submission to the husband he completely misses the point. He says, if I remember rightly, that women should not envy their husbands' headship because it is a 'crown of thorns' - that being expected to take responsibility for another human being like that is painful and difficult. And this is true, but what he doesn't seem to notice is that full-on submission to my husband abdicates my own moral responsibility and injures my dignity as a human being with my own relationship with God. 'He for God only, she for God in him' is not a healthy attitude, but it is encouraged by the whole concept of headship. Would I agree to abort a healthy foetus if my husband ordered me to? Would I commit murder? Would I jump off a cliff?
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). But if I was getting married tomorrow, I would not. And I have a very happy marriage - a 50-50 partnership, in which either of us may have the casting vote depending on the circumstances.
Jane R
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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?
ham n' eggs, i don't quite understand your point here. is it your contention that members of the judiciary, officers of the armed forces, and employers have total control over the lives of the people under them? it seems to me that members of the judiciary have power over people who have been brought to them to be judged, and only have power over them in the context of the issue for which they are peing judged (and we won't even mention the issue of jury trial) and even then only in the context of written, agreed on laws and rules. members of the armed forces are under the control of their superiors only wehn they are on duty. and if an employer tried to exert headship over an employee over every aspect of their life, well, i don't think that they'd have many employees.
--------------------
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
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but why would a woman want to marry a man she is not willing to submit to? 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?
In these days of self-selected marriages, why marry someone you don't trust to act in your best interest?
Of course if he starts acting contrary to the dictates of Christian love, the "submission" rules are all off (as St. John Chrysostom advised in the 5th century fergoshsakes). But do you really go into marriage assuming that your husband either is, or is going to become at some unspecified future date, an ogre and a tyrant?
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
cause there is NO ONE i would be willing to grant that sort of overlordship to. being as all people are fallible.
"there wasn't ever but one perfect man ever, and they crucified him..."
i wanted to get married to a human, not join a convent and get married to the lord.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
and one based on an arbitrary factor of someone's genetic makeup
But I do believe in that, at least in the form of hereditary monarchy. Certainly I have no problem with it at all.
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?
Not any more than the obedience (to I believe we are called as Christians) would have allowed us to commit idolatry in the name of the Emperor in ancient Rome; but I believe we were to obey apart from being commanded to do wrong things, and the same in marriage. What you describe further ...
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).
... sounds to me like exactly the right kind of obedience, in those and other circumstances.
David
weird orthodox guy
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
I guess that makes me a doormat.
--------------------
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
Chastmastr wrote (re hierarchy based on an arbitrary factor of someone's genetic makeup)
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!) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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?
Let me rephrase that - why would a man marry a woman he is not willing to submit to?
We all generally have to let other people have their way from time to time, even when we don't like it, in order to have relationships with them.
But why, when the chips are down, should one partner's opinion be unusually privileged simply because of their sex?
That's what I find puzzling, as I see no evidence which suggests that leadership is sex-linked in humans.
As for the rest of what you said
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!
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?
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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!
I'm trying hard to keep out of this, but let me interject that I have read the same implication in a number of the posts as did Mousethief. Ditto for Arietty's comment.
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Thank you, Scot. I didn't think I was going mad, but I can never be too sure.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
frin
Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9
|
Posted
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?
Well in my case, because I love him and trust him. But I know that my judgement outclasses his on many subjects and it is foolish leadership to hand over responsibility to the person recognised by both parties to be least capable of wielding it. When it comes down to 'where do we stand legally' on anything, I will, of course, accept his judgement. The rest is for negociation or the best suited decision maker in each case.
'frin
--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.
Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) <--Titus 1 man running in fear from duchess in San Jose...
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
'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
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
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!)
No, just about Martha.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Girl, you know what I believe since this thread is peppered with my comments.
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
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.
Ummm, no, I wouldn't say so.
I'd certainly agree that "the concept" is valid; respected, well, that depends on your definition thereof. As a logical matter, I don't respect the "headship" concept. I respect *people* and not concepts. That is why I can respect many people who espouse concepts I do not respect. And so I wouldn't say it is "to be respected" in that sense. What IS to be respected is the right of free people to submit to their husbands, their dogs, or the Pope.
I can think of circumstances where I would say the submission is neither valid nor respectable. That would be where a free woman submits to a decision that imperils others. Let's say she feels that hitting for discipline is wrong, and he says it's necessary, and then he gets the deciding vote. The kids pay for her "submission". 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Clay_Pigeon
Mathematics
# 2516
|
Posted
Sorry guys.....I REALLY REALLY tried to read every post in detail before posting, but grey stuff started coming out of my ears and my early morning teaching committment is weighing heavily on my shoulders. So, I'm going to post my comment and if it is repetative, please answer with appropriate smack downs.....but please....not in the face.
One theme that I've seen throughout all of these posts is that the concept of what it means to be "head" and "submitting" is primarily informed by modern notions -- particularly modern corporate notions. Most people seem to work off of the idea that it has to do with a transfer of power in SOME degree, and that people have varying ways of following or not following this to idea to obtain enjoyable, working marriages.
I suggest that, as Christians, we should toss out these common ideas of viewing submission and leadership, and instead look to the life and teachings of Christ for appropriate definitions of what it means to be the "head", and what it means to be "submitting."
Of course, looking directly at Christ is not the best analogue for us people, primarily because Christ, as the head, has authority and insight that NO ONE has.
Yet, what Jesus taught about leadership/headship, and modelled for his disciples goes directly against the common notions of leadership/headship that people commonly work by.
The verses that PARTICULARLY stick in my head are
*Luke 10:48 Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all--he is the greatest."
*Matt 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
*The entire foot washing scene in John.
*Jesus on the cross.
I'm sure there are others.
Perhaps it is time to see headship and submission not in terms of power, but SOLELY in terms of responsibility and servanthood, because that's how Jesus demonstrated headship and taught his disciples.
When I read Paul's "Submit yourselves, one to another" advice to married people, I imagine Paul turning to me, and [a la Bill Lumburgh in Office Space] saying
"Hi troy...what's happening....mmm...yeah....your fiancee...she'll be submitting to you....so you're gonna need to do is discover as many of her wants and needs as you possibly can, and meet as many of them as you possibly can [without totally burning yourself out]....m'okay? Thanks a bunch"
And ditto for her to me....
Instead of Paul speaking about power in that statement, I see Paul talking more about an ideal of a person not needing to zealously advocate his/her wants and needs to his/her spouse, because the spouse is ready to do everything in his/her power to meet them -- once they are known.... and vice-versa.
I remember a fight I had with my now-fiancee, in which I scored major brownie points and conclusively ended the fight by saying, "You don't have to yell and scream for me to listen. If you tell me your needs, I'm gonna try as hard as I can to meet them." It was one of my finer moments. I'm now up to 3 (finer moments, not brownie points).
Of course, I forward these ideas with two disclaimers:
1) No model will automatically work for everyone, and those people who have a "been there, done that" attitude about this model should not immediately conclude that I'm advocating this model as being automatically superior to however they and their spouse do their marriage
2) Most of my suggestions at 12:25 am are naturally half-assed and require refinement. Refine away!
Since in 7 hours I need to be both verbal AND cheery to a group of high school students who are NOT, I should probably shut up now.
-troy
--------------------
THAT'S IT! NOW I'M PISSED!. You're so off my prayer list.
-Was Once Troy
Posts: 599 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
Well, I got married in Wales, where the 'obey' bit hasn't been in the marriage service for years. So no problem!
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I am quite impressed that this thread has made it through three pages!
Way to go. ![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
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.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
Thanks Freddy,
I agree with everything you wrote there, but i lack the Biblical imagery to put it that way.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
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! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
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
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
frin
Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.
Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Claire PB
Shipmate
# 1507
|
Posted
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.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 74 | From: Lisburn, Nothern Ireland | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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
--------------------
“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
|
|
Claire PB
Shipmate
# 1507
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 74 | From: Lisburn, Nothern Ireland | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Claire PB
Shipmate
# 1507
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 74 | From: Lisburn, Nothern Ireland | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarajane
Shipmate
# 1642
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Still wondering.....
Posts: 97 | From: half way up the mountain | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarajane
Shipmate
# 1642
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Still wondering.....
Posts: 97 | From: half way up the mountain | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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......... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
