|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
Snow White
Apprentice
# 2390
|
Posted
As I'm new round here I'm not sure where I should be asking this (or even if there is an archived thread that will answer my questions) but....
Does anyone have anyone have any sensible, rational views on headship and submission that fit in with both the Bible and the 21st Century?
I mean, as far as I can see it, the Bible seems to say that God has created man and woman to be equal but to have slightly different, but complimentary roles. Taking into account the cultural context of many of the relevant passages (particularly the Pauline ones) - it still seems to me that God has different roles for man and woman, especially as husband and wife.
What I don't understand, however, is the concept of submission. Call me a heretic if you want, but I just cannot accept that in this day and age, I should "submit" to my husband. I know that submission is a complex issue, but the idea of me having to allow my husband have the final say in a decision (however loving he may be) just seems unacceptable! Maybe I am a product of Generation x growing up with equal opportunities shouted from every roof-top but I refuse to think of my forth-coming marriage as anything but a partnership of equals - with 50/50 voting rights!
I'd be interested in anyone else's views of how they apply these biblical principles to their 21st Century marriage...
What does anyone else think?
[ 25. May 2016, 18:30: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posts: 30 | From: Reading | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
sensible and rational thoughts? on the Ship??????
you must be joking! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seriously though, Snow White, you are right to question anybody who demands that you be submissive - this suggestion IME is usually made by someone who wants to dominate you (using the bible as an excuse). And you know you are the fairest of them all, so don't let them! If anyone tries to make you believe you have to live like that, just set the dwarfs on them or give them that poisoned apple...or something....... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
The apostle Paul never married- IMHO, if he had, he might not have relied so much on clever metaphors for his theology in that regard... or maybe that's why he never married...
It should be pointed out, though, that Paul's metaphor centers around Christ-as-head-of-church, and Christ, as that head, is neither a "boss" nor a "master"- he's a servant and, yes, our partner. He got the be head of the church through sacrfice. All the business about man being the "head" of women is, in context, not even about obedience, per se, but about how women behave in church. Many scholars beleive the Corinthian church had, as converts, a good number of women who had converted from the cult of Mithra, which was a priestess cult, one in which the women ran the show, and in which there was a lot of gender-bending rituals and temple prostitution. They guess that Paul's comments about "busybodies" and about propriety in worship comes from these women, who were trying to "import" Mithra rites into Christian practice. Paul's instructions are just a reminder of Jewish regulations about women in synagogue.
Either way, should you meet a man (or a church) who thinks you ought to "submit" to your husband, run away, run far, far away. He (they) is (are) up to no good.
-le
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
St. John Chrysostom, one of our power hitters, said that the most that could be demanded of a woman is that she not insult her husband in public. Anything above that is dependent upon his treatment of her.
That's not 21st century however but 4th/5th century. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snow White
Apprentice
# 2390
|
Posted
The funny thing is that it is me arguing for headship and my fiance arguing against!! (Being Snow White, I am actually a girl!)
I just see that there are so many models in the bible of male headship within the family. I just can't see how this means I should submit (and there's not much chance of this anyway! . I think God must be getting at something in the Bible with so many models of a male head. But what does this mean for a loud dominating 21st century mid twentys girl and her quiet hen-pecked fiancee?!
Posts: 30 | From: Reading | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
When you work it out, will you let this very independent-minded 21st century girl and her quiet longsuffering husband know?
We're very new at this (not a year yet) so I'm not going to claim much knowledge... the thing with 50/50 voting rights is who gets the casting vote?
There are issues my husband and I disagree on. Some of them are issues where we can agree to disagree. Sometimes we have talked things through, and he has come round to my opinion. Somtimes I come around to his. What happens though, when we have a disagreement over a particular decision (ie where it is not possible to simply agree to disagree) and neither of us are budging?
I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility. But that would only happen after much much discussion, not just as a dismissal out of hand of my opinion or feelings.
Out of interest, and because it's never occurred to me before, you say that you are happy with the idea of his headship, but not of your submission. Can you describe how you can have one without the other?
By the way, I do wince whenever I type 'submit'. But I think that's just the word, not the concept!!
bird
at work and typing fast - apologies for gibberish
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snow White
Apprentice
# 2390
|
Posted
Thanks for your thoughts everyone.
I don't have any formulated hard views in my head which is why I am struggling! I agree that God has given very different roles to man and wife and that it seems to be that the husband is the head of the family. Beyond all the cultual issues it seems to me that God is "hinting" at a principle...But I don't know what it is or how it would be worked out today!
I just hate the idea of my husband making a decision that was against my view. Perhaps that is a lesson in humility that I need to learn!
It also seems very difficult when in many areas I am the leader. He is a relatively new Christian (although I probably have more to learn from him than he does from me). I am usually better informed about finance, work issues, current events etc and often provide a rational viewpoint to his views! But that's not to say he is any less - he is a wonderful, kind caring thoughtful man who has a hungry heart for God... but if anyone was to be the natural leader - we would both say that I was!
Perhaps this will change when we are married? Over years?
I want to have a biblically based marriage but struggle when the biblical model we both see seems so far removed from our situation!
Help!
Posts: 30 | From: Reading | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Birdie:
I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility. But that would only happen after much much discussion, not just as a dismissal out of hand of my opinion or feelings.
This is how my wife and I have worked it out also. It has never come down to invoking that authority yet, and I hope it never does. I can tell you that knowing the responsibility ultimately rests on my shoulders makes me much more cautious and considerate than I might be naturally.
scot
--------------------
“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
Everything that has been said thus far rings true for me and my wife also. We've never had it come to a stalemate yet (may it never do so!) but should it do so, I have the responsibility to cast the tie-breaking vote, and stand by the consequences.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I think Birdie and Mousethief have pretty much said it, so I don't have to post my own identical views...
Submission, obedience, and hierarchy have been given a bad rap in our era, in my view. But I've posted ad nauseam about this elsewhere... you might want to look at C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and what he says about marriage there.
Or I could just post the link here.
"Something else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with. Christian wives promise to obey their husbands. In Christian marriage the man is said to be the `head'. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all - why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?"
There's also this essay, "Membership," though I warn the reader that this particular web page is pretty painful to try to read, but at least it has the text. They need to fix their typeface...
"Authority exercised with humility and obedience accepted with delight are the very lines along which our spirits live. Even in the life of the affections, much more in the Body of Christ, we step outside that world which says 'I am as good as you.' It is like turning from a march to a dance. It is like taking off our clothes. We become, as Chesterton said, taller when we bow; we become lowlier when we instruct."
Lewis in another essay I cannot find online explains further his notions (with which I wholeheartedly agree) about authority and hierarchy, not legally enforced but freely undertaken, of husband over wife as well as priest over layman and others. (If there is anything Lewis ever said with which I personally disagree, it is that he is more democratic than I am.)
David
trying to learn obedience with delight and authority with humility
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
I just hate the idea of my husband making a decision that was against my view. Perhaps that is a lesson in humility that I need to learn!
Yes, it sounds awful, I agree. But do bear in mind that this is your husband, who (presumably ) you love and respect, and who loves and respects you. It's not like he's going to come home one day and say "hello dear, I've decided XY and Z, and I don't want to hear your opinion on it, because I'm <beats chest> the man". At least I hope not... These things happen after lots of discussion and throwing ideas around.
I think the principles of submission & headship are there, and how they work out in your marriage is something you'll discover as you go along. We're all different.
I think what Scot said:
quote:
I can tell you that knowing the responsibility ultimately rests on my shoulders makes me much more cautious and considerate than I might be naturally.
is also very important.
By the way, there are a couple of references earlier in the thread to husbands, churches or people generally 'demanding' your submission. No-one demands that I submit to my husband. I submit to my husband (in the ways already described) because I think there is a biblical principle there.
bird
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
sorry, that last para should have been "I choose to submit to my husband because..."
bird
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
if there is free choice involved, birdie, that is fine. But the 'command' gets into difficult water when a dictatorial leader demands it and a person is in a difficult situation, such as having a very dominant partner. If one is in such a situation (fortunately not mine) imagine the guilt that person would feel when they tried to stick up for themselves. (They would feel they were going against the bible )
I have been in an experience where a priest tried to 'divide and conquer' using this 'be submissive' command. It was pretty unpleasant, but fortunately we saw through what he was trying to do. It may not be a commonly used technique but it helps to be aware that it can happen.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
I do appreciate that. Any principle can be abused, and I think you were right in your earlier post to suggest that Snow White should question anyone who 'demands' her submission.
I am also aware that I am very fortunate in my position where my submission to my husband is not abused.
However the fact that a principle or doctrine might be abused doesn't mean we should therefore not bother with it any more. Not that that's what you're saying, I'm sure.
bird
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415
|
Posted
Ok, start with disclosure, I'm male and I am very much against headship.
How I've dealt with the issue is that each partner brings individual strengths and weaknesses to the relationship. There are a number of factors which can determine the casting vote - experience and knowledge, personal risk, etc. Most often, for me it's come down to expertise.
Where things get beyond making a sensible decision by such criteria, toss a coin (or similar). If it's important, then wait. If it's important and urgent, and it's 50/50 on who should take the lead, then behave like adults and return to the coin if needsbe.
Whatever you do, no 'I told you so's - we all make bad decisions from time to time.
Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snow White
Apprentice
# 2390
|
Posted
I guess what I am learning from this is that I will have to trust that my partner is in tune with God. Hopefully if we are both in tune with Him we should be both singing from the same song-sheet (as it were!)
gbuchanan - why are you against headship? It seems to me that it is a biblical concept - even taking into account the relevant cultural contexts of certain passages.
I do love and respect my fiancee and I guess marriage is about trusting someone despite their faults. I am also beginning to realise that this is something I am going to have to help him (and let him) "grow" into. It seems to me that headship is part of being male and that for him to develop into the most "Jesus like" man he can - headship (within the God given gift of marriage) is integral to this. (For him anyway - I can't speak for those that are not married!)
And perhaps submission is part of my femaleness.... but I'm struggling with that concept!!
Posts: 30 | From: Reading | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hagar
Shipmate
# 1338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
It also seems very difficult when in many areas I am the leader. He is a relatively new Christian (although I probably have more to learn from him than he does from me). I am usually better informed about finance, work issues, current events etc and often provide a rational viewpoint to his views! But that's not to say he is any less - he is a wonderful, kind caring thoughtful man who has a hungry heart for God... but if anyone was to be the natural leader - we would both say that I was!
It seems to me that the beauty of our modern society is that we stop looking to rigid sexual stereotypes and look at the person. You say that you have the talents to be the natural leader, then maybe God expects you to use them. In another post you say your finance is henpecked Maybe, that is where you have to work, to try to lead without controling your partner.
You mention the fact that the Bible is full of male "headship" models. Well, that's true but I think that a lot of that is cultural. Our tradition comes out of a hyper-patriarchal system. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, was rejecting a female dominated church as well. Paul then says there is no male, there is no female, we are all one in Christ.
I think that the principle involved here is that we should treat each other as individuals and not as sexes. In some relationship the woman will lead, in others the man. Each relationship has to determine its own way to act. It is much easer just to say men act this way and women act another. However, I think we are called to dig deeper than that.
This creates a special challenge to those women who find themselves in roles of authority and men in submissive roles. Each will have to learn to act faithfully and responsibly. However, I think that this is much better than denying your own character and submitting to a model that just doesnt fit.
Posts: 67 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basket Case
Shipmate
# 1812
|
Posted
My own disclosure: Female, with history of 1 unsuccessful marriage, with my ex-husband & I continuing to care about each other as separate individuals - and he became a really good father to our daughter as she got older (he wasn’t into it when she was little).
I agree with gbuchanan on this. I don’t think the dominant/submissive model works at all in personal adult relationships, and I suspect it isn’t optimal even in other arenas – although it is the most practical and efficient.
I respect those who have said “The Bible says certain things, and I need to look at my motives if I can’t subscribe to those words without reservation” – but I submit there is a need to look deeper and more seriously at the Bible than that. Jesus made a point, repeatedly and habitually in His actions and words, that the primary relationship for each person is the one between the individual and God.
In cultures where there is a practical need for one person, not two, to be the head and decision-maker, as far as I know there was consensus that was the way it needed to be, basically for physical & cultural health & survival.
There is no such consensus & no such need in our culture, for good reason, IMHO. I think a major task of our culture is learning somehow to co-exist on a planet which is shrinking and sickening. All of us will need to learn graceful “mutual submission” for our own survival.
I question whether the women who are saying they subscribe to their husband being the head (simply by virtue of his gender) will still do so – if, for instance, their husband decides to do something they truly think is unwise. I appreciate Scot’s comments re: how such responsibility makes him more thoughtful (every good parent is aware of that dynamic) but I really think that applies to both partners in a marriage, and I like gbuchanan’s model of the one with more expertise being deferred to. That seems like common sense to me.
Posts: 1157 | From: Pomo (basket) country | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
And perhaps submission is part of my femaleness.... but I'm struggling with that concept!!
I suspect if submission were really a part of femaleness, it wouldn't be such a struggle.
As a single woman, I strongly disagree with the ideas of male headship put forward on this thread, as they seem to suggest that women need male leadership and fail to take into account the fact that women may be perfectly capable of leading happy, healthy lives without a man to cast the deciding vote. If I were to marry, there is no way on earth I'd agree to any kind of "submission" clause - I've been doing just fine all these years, thanks, and I don't see that marriage would somehow change my ability to make good choices and exercise good judgement. And what happens when a woman is widowed? Does she suddenly become more capable of making good decisions? Who is the head in that case?
I really don't see that there can be any head of household other than Christ.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And what happens when a woman is widowed? Does she suddenly become more capable of making good decisions?
No. The deceased's brother is supposed to marry her ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QUOTE]I suspect if submission were really a part of femaleness, it wouldn't be such a struggle.
<snip>
I really don't see that there can be any head of household other than Christ.
Submission is part of humanity (or at least Christianity) and I for one find it to be a real bitch.
RuthW, please don't misunderstand anything I wrote above to mean that Christ is not the head of my household. I answer to Him, as does my wife. Sorry if that part was not clear.
scot
--------------------
“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
|
|
Kerry
Shipmate
# 202
|
Posted
I am female and married and a Christian. I take my faith seriously, but I also take my own life seriously, and hence that is why I am both a Christian and a feminist. Having studied the texts in question quite carefully, I cannot honestly see any reason why the submission-obedience argument has to apply within marriage. It absolutely has to apply in our relationship with God, I completely see that, but I really DON'T get why that has to be extended to the family power structure, within what was a very very very very different kind of society! Gender relations are, I think, key to this debate, if we are not to descend into a an overly literalistic model of Bible interpretation.
Great theological thinker that he is, and great model of churchmanship that he provides, I don't take Paul's advice completely literally. That is to say, I am a woman and I don't cover my head in church. I also don't believe that I am bound to obey my husband, except in the ways in which he is also bound to obey me. How do we get around the idea of a stalemate? Well, if we ever have one, one of us will have to give way. At the moment, serious disagreements (of which there have been few) are resolved by appeals to principle. If one of us is arguing from principle and the other from convenience, then the other one wins. If we ever reached a point where we were both arguing from equally strong principles, then it would be up to us, in prayer and humility, to decide which one of us would step back and allow the other one to take the responsibility for the decision. That is not about weakness or obedience and servitude, but love. And a sense of love which recognises that both partners should have a role to play in difficult decision-making, even if it is in the simple sense of stepping back.
Women and men have a right to make this choice, they have a right to give obedience in love and they also have a right to withhold it in love. There is no more reason why the male genitalia should have a monopoly on familial authority than why they should have a monopoly in church.
Kerry
--------------------
I want a cool signature too....
Posts: 150 | From: Sheffield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
You won't find a model of modern democracy in the Bible either, but you wouldn't take that to mean we're all meant to live in empires sustained by military conquest and enslaving of conquered peoples.
The ancient world was intensely hierarchical in ways which we would regard as abusive today.
Ancient theories of psychology and physiology falsely degraded both women and adult males who were slaves as not being capable of reason.
St Paul tried to ameliorate the abuses of this society by stressing that masters and husbands (free adult males)should behave kindly and respectfully.
In the context of his time and the congregations to which he was giving guidance, that was radical, pragmatic and humane.
Hpwever in the centuries intervening, we have learned that high-status adult males are not the only people in a society possessed of reason, and that behaving as if they are creates grave injustices.
We have also learned that ancient theories of physiology which were used to rationalize the second class status of women (such as Aristotle's theories about conception) are simply false.
We therefore have the same good grounds for saying that women should not submit to their husbands that we have for saying that slaves should not submit to their masters.
There are no grounds for slavery and there are similarly no grounds for female submission.
Louise
--------------------
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
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
" (verse 21)..submitting to one another in the fear of God. (verse 22) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself." -Ephesians 5:21-28
The word "Hupotasso" (Hupo is a primary preposition meaning “under”. Tasso means “to arrange in an ORDERLY FASHION). is used here in verse 21 and 22. Same word but due to the grammer, the meaning is different in verse 21 from verse 22. Verse 21 means "yield" and verse 22 mean "subject under".
Note that men are commanded to "love their wives like Christ loved the church".
This is what the Word says and this is what I believe.
The Human reasoning of it...the bible was written too long ago and secular society is different now is not something I subscribe too.
When I first studied this...it caused me much grief. Now, I am reconciled to it. If I ever get married, it will be to a man I respect since he would have the final word on everything. Not a power hungry mongrel who barks orders and then sits on his lazy butt saying "Get me a beer now!".
If you are not an errantist, it is simple...you feel this is all rubbish. If you are an inerrantist, you study the Word to figure out how it applies to your life, not the other way around.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
♬♭ 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
I meant to say in a nutshell: if you are an inerrantist, you study the Word and figure out how to apply your life to it...rather than try to fit in only the parts you chose (like taking only what you want to eat from a cafeteria and leaving the rest).
The key word here is Heuristics...studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it.
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
duchess, I agree with the principle of Bible study you espouse. But, when you read Pauls letters "studying what really is meant, the context and everything around it" then the society (and the prejudices, expectations and understanding of that society) of the original recipients of those letters must be taken into account in just the way Louise and others have said. The result of such a study may well be to say that even if the letters in question are inerrant instructions to the churches they were sent that doesn't mean those same instructions are inerrant to us because our situation is so different. In this case that the husbands' headship & wifes' submission is not, in our society, the way marriage should be arranged.
That's not to say that the texts in question are meaningless today. I tend to the view that as the distinct gender roles assumed in the first century have been blurred and are almost non-existant today then so have the headship/submission roles in relationship. A husband and wife should, I think, share headship and submit to each other.
Of course, I'm single so I'm not talking from experience here at all.
Alan
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Perhaps this would be a good moment for a bit of caution and sensitivity. Let's not get into stating how one another's marriages should be arranged. I am quite happy with mine, as is the missus. I happily recommend our arrangement to one and all, but I will not presume to say that it is how you should do it. I would appreciate the same consideration from the other side of the aisle. Thanks.
scot
--------------------
“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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I've never understood why cultural norms of one society should be imposed on another as though they represent God's law. We'd all agree that murder is wrong. In any generation. But Paul's comments about women? Actually, for his time, he was quite caring. He forbade Christians to mistreat their wives in any way. But He was a first century Jew. Women have never had much in the way of rights in Jewish or Islamic culture.
They are ritually unclean when menstruating(what utter crap!) Their husbands can divorce them for no better reason than wanting a change, but they have no right to divorce their husbands. Jesus, admittedly loved everyone in keeping with His revelation of God's love to humanity, but one thing which stands out in the gospels is His love of women and their love of Him, and I'm not reading a sexual connotation into that.
I don't think there's much room left for headship in the modern world. Nowadays in western society, usually both partners are wage earners. They need to divide both the responsibilities and the financies for the better life.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
With respect, Snow White, I note that you are not yet married. We all go into marriage with certain ideals we hope to live up to - one of yours seems to be this ideal of headship. Whilst there is nothing wrong with ideals, it is worth noting that you never really know what marriage will be like until you live it and it changes and develops from year to year. So be prepared to be flexible and revise your ideals from time to time.
For example, your husband may be ill at some time and you will need to take over responsibility for everything; he may need to do the same for you at other times.
I am struck by the number of times you read in the paper about a couple who are celebrating a phenomenal number of years together (sometimes as many as 70!) and they all seem to say the most important element of their marriage is 'give and take' - on both sides.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wader
Apprentice
# 2993
|
Posted
I realize that there is a biblical argument for the husband being the head of the household. But, there's a biblical argument for a lot of things that I --- even though I call myself a Christian --- don't agree with (e.g. disallowing female priests, not recognizing the validity of homosexual love, selling your children into slavery, etc.).
My marriage with my wife has been a 50/50 partnership. We make decisions together, and when we don't agree, we discuss until either we agree, or someone gives in. Neither side has the cop-out of saying "I'm in charge, so we do what I say." We're forced to work out the differences if we want to stay together. And we very much want to stay together, so we always work out the differences.
Some people think that having someone appointed "in charge" helps to deal with cases where the two people simply cannot agree. I don't think so. If the two people have a truly irreconcilable (and unavoidable) difference, then that will lead to divorce, and the fact that one person agreed to "submit" to the other won't help. After all, if irreconcilable differences can get people to change their minds about "until death do us part", they are going to get people to change their minds about "submit and obey", too.
However (and this will be the more inflammable part of my post), I do think that one person promising to "submit" gives that person an excuse to get out of difficult decisions. If we have to do something that is difficult but necessary (e.g. punishing a child, putting a senile parent in a home, moving away from friends and family to get work, etc.), the submissive one has the option of not facing up to the difficult decision, but just letting the one who is "in charge" make the hard choice.
Disclaimer: I've been married for only 8 years, and although we've had an occasional disagreement, we've never had any really difficult decisions to make, nor have we had any real deep disagreements.
Posts: 1 | From: Vancouver, B.C. | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Paul, I respectfully disagree with you.
I think in some cases people can sacrifice many things and not have to have both parties work.
If I go further into this...this thread will surely end up in HELL since I am aware I have an unpopular view. .
But I will say this: just because society says "this is the way it is" doesn't mean it is always right or best way. I know you know that...but I also believe that when it comes to saying "the bible doesn't apply to us since it is rather outdated." The meaning still applies in my mind.
As an inerrantist, I don't believe the Bible is just a book with some nice stories that I might get something out of. That is why I take the time to try to study more in depth and not just see what fits into my life, and throw out the rest since I don't care for it. If somebody choses to do opposite, it is their progative, but hopefully recongise that that is what they are doing.
My own father is an errantist. He gave me a book which refers to people like myself as "making the Bible an idol" and "worshipping the bible". The writer of the book is a minister of a church in the Bay Area and my father knows him personally.
What I have learned from this [the situation with my dad especially since he became friends with this minister] is if I say much more, I will open a can of worms so I will stop now.
It isn't my intent to stir things up....I was responding to the original post and what I thought bascially for snow white.
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
I've posted this before, but...
My vicar taught a different meaning of this concept. We are told in various places to 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ' ... 'prefer others' etc. So both husband and wife are submitting to each other. However (huge generalisation alert) many men find it hardest to exercise sacrificial love, and many women find it hardest not to nag and boss others about. So the passage alerts each of them to their greatest danger.
Now that still brings up the question of 'what if I don't fit into that generalisation', as well as sounding like some ancient version of 'Men are from Mars, Women are Gullible Enough to Buy this Book' But I've found a grain of truth in it. To put it another way, most men I know seem to have at least a trace of Essence of Homer, and most women have something of Essence of Marge!
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But I do really wonder what it says about women in general if married women are to submit to their husbands, especially considering how many single women are doing just fine without husbands exercising headship or leadership or whatever.
I do see what you're getting at there. 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.
Maybe I have come across as though my husband having the 'final word' is something that comes up all the time. It's not - it never has yet. There is give and take, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and there are times when we decide that I should have the casting vote because I have more experience/background knowledge/whatever than him on the subject in question. However when a stalemate arises - which it never has, and I hope it never will, as Scot and Mousethief have said - the casting vote is his.
quote:
most men I know seem to have at least a trace of Essence of Homer, and most women have something of Essence of Marge!
Brilliant!
I still maintain that if the 'deal' entails me submitting to my husband, and him loving me as Christ loves the church, I have the easier job.
bird
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snow White
Apprentice
# 2390
|
Posted
Thank you so much everyone - this is very helpful.
It is interesting that the two sides of the debate are mirroring what is going on in my head.
Duchess - I have to say that I agree with you and this is part of my struggle. The theme of headship seems too deep a theme within the Bible to be dismissed as cultural (as much as I would like to!) I too agree that we need to look at the themes of the Bible and try to live to those, regardless of our culture and situation....
But on the other hand I agree with those of you who see submission and headship as inequal. I find myself coming back to "In Christ there is no male nor female etc"
Oh dear - this is making me question so many of my views! I hadn't realised what a hornet's nest I was opening for myself!
Chorister - I think your comment about us not being married yet is true and important. Hopefully things will become clearer once we actually get into it! But we are trying to look at the biblical models of marriage and try to have an understanding of Christian marriage before we go into it to try and build a firm foundation. But I appreciate that it is probably one of those things that you need to be in to understand!
I guess like many issues - it will be an evolving struggle to discern God's will for our marriage. (It does seem to be for everything else!)
Posts: 30 | From: Reading | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
Proverbs 31 v16
[The Good Wife] considers a field and buys it
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
If the church through out the ages had taken more notice of that verse, women would have had better property rights and there would have been no objection to wives working and owning their own business.
So by emphasising the verse about submissiveness above the one above parts of the hierachchy have shown their own aggenda.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kerry
Shipmate
# 202
|
Posted
There seem to be a few basic themes to the arguments being expressed here.
1) That we should ignore what we don't like in the Bible.
2) That we should accept wholesale what we don't like in the Bible.
3) That we should use the revelatory authority of our own marriage experience, and that of our friends, as a reason for making the choice.
4) That we should emphasise the cultural differentness of the Bible, and use reason and discernment as a way of making our own - Biblically guided - choice.
Guys, I'm delighted you have such happy marriages, but I personally think personal experience should be used as an argumentative illustration rather than a proving point. I'm surprised that some people are able to do either 1 or 2 with the Bible. Perhaps they don't, actually, but that's what we're accusing them of.
Anyway, I'm for four.
--------------------
I want a cool signature too....
Posts: 150 | From: Sheffield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreenLeaf
Apprentice
# 1719
|
Posted
Okay, this quote comes from way back in the thread, but there is something that hasn't yet been mentioned in the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Birdie:
I don't know, because it hasn't happened yet, but the biblical model would suggest that the 'casting vote' lies with my husband. And if he gets it wrong, it's his responsibility.
What Birdie described is a practical way of dealing with "headship" in terms of who has the final call on a particular issue. It's not wrong and can help it out if ever there is a stalemate (i too, pray that never be so in my marriage).
However, regardless who makes the final decision, someday, at the judgement seat of Christ (see 2 Cor. 5:8-11), the husband will give an account of how he led his family. We know this will occur because of the way God has set up the chain of responsibility in Ephesians 2, making the husband the head of the wife.
Now for the scary part - this accountability includes includes the decisions which the husband had the "casting vote" as well as those he trusted his wife to make. Although SnowWhite's fiancé doesn't really like the idea of headship, he will still be ultimately responsible for it before God. It's not just the husband's responsibility when he gets in wrong, but when he gets it right, and when he does nothing at all. There's no getting out of that.
That sure made my husband and I wake up to his role in our household and to mine to help him do God's will for us in every way possible. I can't imagine causing my husband to have to answer for my mistakes. As I said, scary, very scary.
Posts: 5 | From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snow White
Apprentice
# 2390
|
Posted
Does anyone know any good literature on the subject?
(other than the Bible, of course! )
Posts: 30 | From: Reading | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Birdie, thank you for your excellent post. I agree with you completely, especially the part about a model for a partnership.
RuthW, I have great respect for the capabilities of women (married or single). You have no idea how much I lean on my wife. Don't get the idea that she just goes along with whatever dumb idea falls out of my mouth, either. But at the end of the day, she looks to me for leadership and I look to her for support. We need each other.
Imagine a General has sent two Privates on an important mission. As they are leaving, the General points to one of the Privates and says, "By the way, I'm puting you in charge. You will answer to me personally for whatever happens on this mission." Who has the easier job? Who is more capable? (I can't tell.)
scot
--------------------
“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
|
|
GreenLeaf
Apprentice
# 1719
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snow White:
Does anyone know any good literature on the subject?
(other than the Bible, of course! )
Thanks for mentioning that , I meant to indicate that I garnered a few of the ideas for my post from this book:
Sorenson, David. Have a Heavenly Marriage. Sword of the Lord publishers. 2000. ISBN 0-87398-395-5.
I would say this was the most sensible, bible-based teaching that I have read about marriage. You can get it from http://www.swordofthelord.com/description.asp?item=PB3955.
Posts: 5 | From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I am concerned about the people who say 'Oh you don't need to take any notice of the bible verse which says you must wear hats in church, or women mustn't speak in church, because that's cultural. But you must take notice of the husband being head of the wife because that is the word of God for all time'. It is actually very difficult to discern what is culturally bound and therefore open to revision in the 21st century. As with all uncertain issues we are bound to disagree with each other over it. But never can any of us say, 'I am living by what it says in the bible but you're not'. It is not as simple as that.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Snow White, I am glad you are doing some soul searching on this topic. It is rather uncomfortable. I was almost engaged to a man and that is how I studied up on this topic (unfortunately he was rather too gung ho about the submission type and not seemingly aware of the luuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv part, the sacrificial luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv part [insert Barry White here singing "Never gonna Give you Up"].
The Proverbs 31 woman ran her household. She got up at the crack of dawn to make breakfast and get the duty rouster ready to tell her servants what to do. She spent all day making sure everything in the household went smoothly. She does "She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant", but that is not all she does. She is a domestic goddess, a bibical Martha Stewart. She is not hanging out in the town, away from her household everyday. She also speaks with kindness and wisdom...she is what every single man looks for at my church, but they would like her to look like a fully clothe Britney Spears probably (modestly dressed of course).
Anyway, I must go off to another family thing.
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
what I want to clarify:
Yes, she obviously went into town but did not spend her whole day and night there. (When would she have time to cook for everyone and make their clothes if she hung out in town all day long?)
--------------------
♬♭ 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well said, Chorister.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Although this drifts into Kerygmania I have to argue that submission is also for husbands. Ephesians 5:21 says submit to one another that can only mean husbands submit to their wifes. It doesn't say husband are excluded from this command.
Part of the problem is the the NIV puts a title above verse 22 which separates it from the previous one. Then of course the NIV translaters are all from a conservative background.
In my opinion submission and love are opposite sides of the same coin.
*Nightlamp vanishes in a burst of sulpher*
--------------------
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
|
|
Arrietty
Ship's borrower
# 45
|
Posted
As I recall, the meaning of the word 'head' in the Ephesians passage equates to 'origin' - i.e. the source of a river. Man is 'head' (source) as Eve was structured from Adam's rib.
There was a fashion a few years ago in some circles to say that all-female groups in churches (like a women's bible study) had to have a man on the committee to be the 'head'.
Strangely, I never heard an example of a church saying that a Men's Breakfasts (for example) had to have a female member to be the 'body'.
Paul's injunction both preserves the status quo AND is revolutionary. Slaves, obey your master (as is expected) BUT - MASTERS......... Children, obey your parents (as is expected) BUT - PARENTS........... Wives, obey your husvands (as is expected),BUT - HUSBANDS.....
In each case, those with the 'secular' power over others are being challenged to adopt Kingdom values, not act according to current mores.
I has a big hang up about this when I became a Christian, I have thought a lot about it.
Ultimately, I agree with whoever said it is a cop-out. If I robbed a shop then said 'I am a Christian, my husband told me to do it, I have to obey him ', it would not be a defence.
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aardvark
Shipmate
# 2295
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
...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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
That's fascinating Arietty.
And another illustration of how ancient theories about biology have underpinned this sort of thinking about women.
I'm reminded about the exercise where a teacher separated her class into blue eyed children and brown eyed children for a day and gave each a turn of being the favoured group in order to teach them about the nature of prejudice.
The distinction was based on one group falsely being declared superior by biology and thus put in charge of the other - but the realities it brought home for the participants were very uncomfortable!
There is no discernable difference in the general decision making competence of men and women, but for hundreds of years our society has acted as if there was and the result has been a very real disadvantaging of women which has only seriously been addressed in the past century or so.
Much of this disadvantaging of women was justified from the Bible using these sort of verses and models.
Now if people decide that they want to run their lives that way and that it is meaningful for them, then that's their right.
I realise that, like most models of living, that if people find it meaningful for them and they behave lovingly to each other, that it can work for them.
But I want to say that because of the kind of view of women this encourages and historically has encouraged, that it is something I find deeply disturbing. I find it more disturbing because it is derived from biological notions and concepts which have proved demonstrably false.
For me, it's like finding people willing to argue that black people should go back into slavery - to listen to people seriously arguing that women should re-embrace this sort of second class status on marriage.
( I can't find a smilie for hair standing on end)
When it come to decisions, we can all make good ones and we can all make crap ones. I think a good guide is make sure that the giving in is not all on one side or out of proportion.
cheers,
Louise
--------------------
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 Snow White:
The funny thing is that it is me arguing for headship and my fiance arguing against!!
Well that's easy then.
You accept his decision not to be the head.
Locust Eater has stated St Paul never married - is this true? I had the impression he was married. In fact I have read one bible commentary which stated the thorn in Paul's flesh was his nagging wife ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) (Now I need that hair-on-end smilie, Louise - can you pull any strings to get one?
Peter certainly was married, as it is on record that he had a mother in law. I guess once his wife had 'submitted' to him going off with Jesus she got used to being the head of the family while he pursued his ministry.
If we are going to look to the Bible for gender roles I would have thought we needed to look at how women are portrayed. There is no scriptural account of Mary submitting to anyone other than God is there - she even insisted on Jesus performing the miracle at Cana after he had said the time wasn't right!
--------------------
i-church
Online Mission and Ministry
Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
