|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christian submissiveness
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
Back in February a curate in Sevenoaks caused a stir with a sermon where he said that the reason many marriages fail is that the wives are not submissive enough. The Times report is here, google any of the key words and you'll find more. Sorry not to post this in February when it would have been more current.
I don't want to go over his sermon with a fine-toothed comb, nor to argue about women's rights in the 21st century.
My point is this - what is actually meant by submission in the context of marriage? And how can it lead to a stronger marriage if one partner is constantly prevented from being an equal voice in their partnership?
If the husband tells his wife what they're going to have for supper, what they're doing that weekend or where they're going on holiday, is she not little more than a servant?
And if it's a case of her letting him have his way for the sake of a quiet life, then in what way is this an equal partnership, if in fact she is treating him like an annoying 5-yr old?
Is there some other kind of wifely submission I'm not looking at?
I appreciate that in a disagreement, someone has to give way. And elsewhere in the NT, Paul says 'Submit yourselves one to another.' But it seems to me that the Revd Mark Oden is talking about an entirely one-sided submission, and I don't see how it can lead to a marriage that is a partnership of equals. Maybe that's not what he wants.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
I know that my in-laws see it as where there is deadlock on an important issue where a ecision needs to be made then, after discussion and prayer, the husband makes the decision. It is something to be used rarely if ever, and only where a decision must be made and agreement cannot be reached after much discussion/reading books/prayer/counsel.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Is there some other kind of wifely submission I'm not looking at?
I've heard it expressed as the man having the casting vote in situations where the couple cannot reach agreement, rather than the man deciding everything on his own.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
This is probably heading for Dead Horse territory, but I see the question itself rooted in a faulty exegesis of Eph. 5, which IMHO is clearly advocating for mutual submission (as per v. 21). Which in some ways is going to change the question, since it's not about "wifely" submission but rather about Christian submission-- not just husbands and wives, but all Christians. In a practical sense, however, it doesn't really change much, since what "Christian submission" means to a wife would be, well, wifely submission (among other things).
I take submission to mean simply putting someone else before me. In my marriage it means putting my husbands needs and interests above my own. fwiw, he seems to be far better at submission (putting me first) than I am (as my son reminded me just this morning). Lucky me.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
I submit to my wife all the time. Ironically, she advocates for me being the "priesthood head" of the family in everything. Yet I have so few opinions or needs or even wants, vis-a-vis the house, yard, family activities, etc., that my wife's desires are catered to time and again. I just, don't, care: so she gets to have her way. Currently, she has arranged to have "our" bedroom repainted and recarpeted after c. 30 years. Obviously I don't care to be bothered, but she does. The money isn't an issue. The upheaval IS. But, since I no longer try and sleep in the same room with "the lawnmower" (her snoring), upheaval to me has already taken place: what's one more layer of upheaval in "her" bedroom? This is known as compromise. I will always view the carpet as-is to be adequate: what's the big deal about walls that aren't perfect and never were? I can live with it all. She doesn't want to. Simple difference of opinion: I back off and let her "fly" with it.
Submitting means not preventing others from getting their way when it isn't a moral issue. We all have to make space for each other....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Is Romans 13 relevant, about being subject to state authorities? That one's certainly been read in lots of different ways...
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
We try hard at mutual submission, the submission of each of us, as individuals, to our common purpose and well-being as a couple.
Sometimes this process leads to a simple compromise, but often it leads us in another surprising direction which satisfies us both without being what either of us initially expected.
In the process of discerning what that common good to which we ought both to submit is, we try to respect the principle of an "equal say", but we both recognise that we have different strengths, and, if we cannot agree on exactly what the common good is, one of us will generally concede to the strengths of the other.
In this way, we both submit to us, without either one having to submit unjustly to the other. Only rarely is there a real tie, when we can neither see the same vision of the common good nor decide whose vision of the common good is superior and ought therefore to prevail. In these circumstances we try to find an interim common good, which enables us to do what is necessary in the short term while waiting for a longer-term vision of our common good to become clear.
[I don't know whether this approach would work with an Anglo-Saxon, though: I think it needs a certain degree of Hispanic bluntness, honesty, and absolute loyalty, otherwise you end up trying to "please" each other - and annoying each other and building resentment in the process - rather than trying to submit to the common good. Friends and relatives think we are crazy, or that our marriage is very bizarre and probably in trouble, because in the process we use a lot of written and/or visual prompts and cue-cards. For example, we have a "Five Minute rant" card, which entitles the bearer to an uninterrupted five minute rant about whatever is bothering them; this may be followed by a red card, in which case the other partner has to leave the ranter in peace for thirty minutes to cool down, or it might (more often) be followed by an immediate return to peace and normality. We get the impression that most couples don't do this - they just play "oh nothing, I'm fine" games and try to guess what's bothering the other person, with all the ambiguity and scope for misunderstanding that results from that.]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
[I don't know whether this approach would work with an Anglo-Saxon, though: I think it needs a certain degree of Hispanic bluntness, honesty, and absolute loyalty, otherwise you end up trying to "please" each other - and annoying each other and building resentment in the process - rather than trying to submit to the common good. Friends and relatives think we are crazy, or that our marriage is very bizarre and probably in trouble, because in the process we use a lot of written and/or visual prompts and cue-cards. For example, we have a "Five Minute rant" card, which entitles the bearer to an uninterrupted five minute rant about whatever is bothering them; this may be followed by a red card, in which case the other partner has to leave the ranter in peace for thirty minutes to cool down, or it might (more often) be followed by an immediate return to peace and normality. We get the impression that most couples don't do this - they just play "oh nothing, I'm fine" games and try to guess what's bothering the other person, with all the ambiguity and scope for misunderstanding that results from that.]
I don't know that the cultural differences in this particular case are as great on that as the individual personality differences between individuals. What you're describing sounds very much like what my husband I do, only more informally and w/o the use of the visual cues/ cards/ prompts. (Although those sound rather helpful in keeping one on track-- I'd like to steal that idea-- can you share the entire repertoire of cards w/ us? Is there a particular sequence?)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
My wife and I argue rarely - I think the last one was about a year ago, but when we do it, we do it in full door slamming, ring chucking, suitcase packing glory.
We tend not to disagree about things that are likely to lead to an argument. I don't know why - we just don't. We do talk to each other a lot, openly and honestly, but we don't do it in a way to piss each other off. If my wife does something that upsets me, I'll tell her. I don't call her names and try to upset her, just tell her. She then apologises, we make up - end of story. The same works the other way round too. I don't do frosty silences. If she acts like nothings wrong, then so will I.
Talking things through tends to work for us. I don't think there has ever been a time when either of us has 'told' the other person what to do.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Cultural context is all important:
At the time when Paul was writing to the Colossians, traditional family life was breaking down in the Western half of the Roman Empire. But Colossae was very much part of the Eastern half. The East still held to traditional Greek customs. Men could commit adultery with as many concubines as they wanted but if a woman once committed adultery her husband would divorce her. Women were confined to their own quarters in a house. Few males ever entered it. The chief male of the family had the power of Manus: absolute power over his wife, his children and his slaves. He could punish a wife by putting her to death or by selling her into slavery. He could decide whether a newborn child should live or be exposed to die. No son could hold any property while his father lived. Slaves could be maimed, tortured or killed according to their master’s whim. If one slave raised his hand against his master, all the slaves could be put to death.
Seen against this background, what Paul wrote was liable to prosecution for sedition and disregard for law and order. Paul did not believe the man was head of the household. Christ was the head – 3:2, echoing the entire argument of the previous chapter.
Christians must not behave as if they are part of the traditional order. They must show compassion – verse 12. The Greek word conveys the sense of having your guts rearranged, your whole attitude retuned into a different frequency to the prevailing attitudes and behaviour.
Wives obey your husbands in the Lord, as it is fitting. In the Lord, that is in this spirit where Christ is the Lord, where Lordship is shown in sacrificial giving.
As it is fitting: that is, as it fits into this pattern of self-giving
Wives, tune into, go with the flow of self-giving love. Husbands love your wives. Love has already been defined. Love is self-giving. Give yourself to them, don’t lord it over them.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Warning: wild, broad-brush painting of history follows.
I think the problem is that our concept of hierarchy has changed. In the olden days hierarchy was a Good Thing, because it ensured social stability.
e.g. As the Grand Duke of Ricardinia, I might consent to be the vassal of the Emperor of Ruritania. He gets a yearly tribute from the Ricardusberg Salt Mines, and I get his protection from the depradations of the evil Prince-Bishop of Pontevedro. Neither of us has any interest in attacking the other.
My barons occupy a similar position with respect to me, and their serfs to them - and the serfs' wives to the serfs.
The Emperor of Ruritania and the evil Prince-Bishop of Pontevedro are in a much more precarious position, because they meet on terms of equality, not suzerainty. There's nothing to stop them from attacking each other except a promise not to do so, and promises are easily broken. (And it's probably significant that a large amount of Medieval literature is about the disastrous consequences of breaking a promise.)
Nowadays, of course, the situation is reversed, and hierarchy is seen as a bad thing, or at least a necessary evil.
I think it's therefore dangerous, or at least futile, to try to operate marriage as if it were a pre-modern hierarchy without actually having a pre-modern conception of hierarchy.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CuppaT
Shipmate
# 10523
|
Posted
I came out of a background of wifely catering to her husband. My mom did. It was not good. It was taught in my church growing up. It was part of my marriage vows: love, honor, and obey, and it did not seem strange.
But the more I enter into the life of the Church, the more I begin to know the Love of Christ that He had for the Church and that St. Paul said to emulate, the more I see how a quiet and good and healthy marriage ought to be, ever in the love of each other and of Christ.
I don't think I have ever heard the word submit or submissiveness used at home here. But I teach my children that their real needs are different from their every want. And that timing and attitude are important when approaching a parent with a request. Mostly, the younger ones get this intuitively; it is teenagers which seem to lose the skill.
CuppaT
--------------------
Stand at the brink of the abyss of despair, and when you see that you cannot bear it any longer, draw back a little and have a cup of tea.
~Elder Sophrony
Posts: 919 | From: the edge of the Ozarks | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
My wife and I argue rarely - I think the last one was about a year ago, but when we do it, we do it in full door slamming, ring chucking, suitcase packing glory.
We tend not to disagree about things that are likely to lead to an argument. I don't know why -
uh... see above. (Just sayin')
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
C Husbands love your wives. Love has already been defined. Love is self-giving. Give yourself to them, don’t lord it over them.
iow, husbands, submit to your wife.
Which is what v. 21 says.
I see everything that follows from v. 21 as specific examples of the general thesis statement, "Christians submit to one another".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Like Cliffdweller, I don't see "wifely" submission as some unique female duty over and above the general injunction for Christians to submit to one another...to not always insist on having one's own way.
I don't have a dog in this fight in my own same-sex household;-), but I'll share that we very rarely argue. Our household division of duties runs along lines of aptitude/interest, and when it comes to tasks where neither is required/expected (taking out the trash, for instance), we split the difference/share the burden.
When it comes to issues of minor impasse or indecision, one of our favorite conflict resolvers is the time-honored Rock-Paper-Scissors solution. (And I am not making this up.)
We are also sensitive to the other's weaknesses -- for instance, DP contends with a number of conditions that make it difficult to do X or Y, so I'll step in to do those, and likewise I have anxiety issues that make it difficult for me to do X or Y, and she steps in to help me. I like to think that we're pretty evenly matched in the "thorn in the flesh" department.
I can't think of a major impasse we've had. We just talk things out.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Auntie Doris
Screen Goddess
# 9433
|
Posted
When PaulW and I went to see the vicar before our wedding he asked whether I wanted to say the obey bit in the vows. I said 'not really' and then there was this momentary pause before Paul said, 'can I obey instead?'.
Unfortunately this was not apparently an option! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Auntie Doris
--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)
The life and times of a Guernsey cow
Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
When PaulW and I went to see the vicar before our wedding he asked whether I wanted to say the obey bit in the vows. I said 'not really' and then there was this momentary pause before Paul said, 'can I obey instead?'.
Unfortunately this was not apparently an option!
Auntie Doris
Uncle Paul is a keeper.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
This belongs in DH. Down we go.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chou
Shipmate
# 14103
|
Posted
So basically, we females should submit? I've heard several times from Muslim ladies behind various head coverings "it's all about different roles
Can anyone make a case as to how to interpret Paul's letters to any other conclusion? My worry with 1 Corinthians 7 is that marriage is merely the last resort of the weak and lustful...but at least nothing was said of vibrators.
Posts: 51 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chou:
at least nothing was said of vibrators.
Those are mentioned in Psalm 69 (figures) verse 23b:
"make their loins continually to shake."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chou:
So basically, we females should submit? I've heard several times from Muslim ladies behind various head coverings "it's all about different roles
Can anyone make a case as to how to interpret Paul's letters to any other conclusion? My worry with 1 Corinthians 7 is that marriage is merely the last resort of the weak and lustful...but at least nothing was said of vibrators.
Leo's cultural explanation above does a pretty good job. As always however we should build theology from theology, not from application. The theology of the NT is that In Christ their is no Jew/Greek, Male/Female, Slave/Free.
The historic teaching of the Church has always been that Celibacy is the higher calling, and that sex should be for procreation. Following the reformation this view was challenged. Modern Evangelical teaching is in a sense the opposite to historical teaching as practically marriage and family is held in higher regard than singleness or living in community, and sex is encouraged for pleasure (etc.) within marriage.
The lives of the Saints are full of people clearly not called to marriage. Not sure where they would fit in these days in the protestant church.
An alternative approach to sex in this context is to reconsider the meaning of pro-creational.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chou:
So basically, we females should submit? I've heard several times from Muslim ladies behind various head coverings "it's all about different roles
Can anyone make a case as to how to interpret Paul's letters to any other conclusion? My worry with 1 Corinthians 7 is that marriage is merely the last resort of the weak and lustful...but at least nothing was said of vibrators.
Chou, Paul wasn't saying QUITE that! His point was rather that in circumstances of severe persecution and intense missionary activity, those who give no hostages to fortune (through marriage and children) are better off. But he admitted that even in those days most people could not cope with lifelong celibacy, and shouldn't be required to. And for them to marry and have children was God's particular call for their life (though not evidently for Paul's).
For those of us who are not facing persecution or called to the kind of WAY over-the-top total commitment to ministry Paul had, marriage is a perfectl good option. It may even have certain civilizing benefits on the curmudgeonly inclined who have to learn how to get along with another person. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Now, as for submission--Marvin is right, one common and feasible way of looking at it is that in a marriage, someone is going to have to have the casting vote when you reach absolute deadlock (which is hopefully very rare). Either that or the marriage itself dissolves. Designating one gender is one way of solving the issue. I suppose it could have been handled differently, women could have been designated rather than men, or all marriages could have been tri-unions to allow tie breakers.... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
There's also all the mystical stuff about human marriage reflecting (or not) the love between God and his people, Christ and the church. The only thing I'll say about that right now is that EMPHATICALLY it gives no man the right to claim anything over his wife except the right to suffer at her hands. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) Paul's whole emphasis is on submission of yourself to the other and to the union, NEVER on making the OTHER person submit to you. Not a word about that kind of thing anywhere that I can recall.
Which means the emphasis is on self-chosen voluntary acts of submission, and involuntary oppression brought on by acts of male domination is simply not in the picture. If the wife chooses not to submit but rather gives her husband the one finger salute, I can't think of anywhere that Paul gives the husband any recourse. He can't even show her the door, apparently--"If one of you has a spouse who is an unbeliever and yet chooses to live with you, you must not divorce him/her."
Of course the reverse is also true, as millions of women have found to their cost. If the man declines to love his wife as Christ loves the church, the woman has no way of forcing that issue either. The best she can do is hope and pray that God will work repentance in his heart.
By the way, none of the above is meant to say that anyone, male or female, should put up with abuse, adultery, or desertion. Jesus (and Paul too) is quite clear that there are occasions when the marriage has gone kaput and the Christian is no longer under obligation. I'm talking rather of the day to day interaction that comes from living in a single home and making decisions about money, the children, etc. etc. etc.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PrettyFly
Ship's sunbather
# 13157
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
C Husbands love your wives. Love has already been defined. Love is self-giving. Give yourself to them, don’t lord it over them.
iow, husbands, submit to your wife.
Which is what v. 21 says.
I see everything that follows from v. 21 as specific examples of the general thesis statement, "Christians submit to one another".
This is how I see it, too. Although I think there is also something to be said for the "husband getting the casting vote" line too.
Essentially, when I promsied to obey my husband, I saw it as an expression of trust. I promised to obey him, safe in the knowledge that he had just promised to honour me and to love me as Christ loved the church. If he keeps his part of the promise, which I trust him to do to the best of his ability, then I have no problem keeping mine.
--------------------
Screw today. I'm going for ice cream.
Posts: 1797 | From: Where the sun keeps shining and where the weather suits my clothes | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chou
Shipmate
# 14103
|
Posted
Do you have that passage specifically memorised for this purpose mousetheif?? Anyway there are always those who disagree
This is DH so I guess i can ramble about as much endless unresolvable stuff as i want mwhahaha ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Thank you Lamb Chopped (it was very kind of you to take the time to reply to my PM too). Do you have any Bible passages which you were thinking of when you posted?
quote:
Chou, Paul wasn't saying QUITE that!
Aaaah yes I have been told many times what the Bible writers "were actually saying" but I must be true to my own conscience in my interpretation I think:
1Cor7 quote:
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry .[a] 2But since there is so much immorality , each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command . 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Edward Green
quote:
The historic teaching of the Church has always been that Celibacy is the higher calling, and that sex should be for procreation. Following the reformation this view was challenged.
It seems clear the above means celibacy is the gift, not marriage and “living in a loving relationship” outside of marriage isn’t even an option. Even though I'd put celibacy last and the other two first, I don't interpret that as Biblical.
quote:
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried , as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves , they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord ): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
Paul says "pattern your life after mine" in Philippians 3:17. If this should be taken "in context"
Lamb Chopped
quote:
His (Paul) point was rather that in circumstances of severe persecution and intense missionary activity
of the persecution of the time or Paul’s life is only relevant to God’s plan for him, why should I take any other part of Paul's teachings as anything but bound to that specific culture and irrelevant to me in mine...especially bits i don't like?
How can the Truth be true if it changes with the times... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) I wish I could sleep easy on your understanding Lamb Chopped. For a while I could, damned silly brain I have.
Posts: 51 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chou:
Do you have that passage specifically memorised for this purpose mousetheif??
You can find virtually ANYTHING in the Bible if you know how to look.
PS it's MousethIEf.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
So you're switching to capitalizing the 'm'?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
When Hugal and I went for marriage prep (15 years ago!) our vicar explained his take on these verses.
He put them in context of the earlier verse about everyone submitting to each other, and said that as a generalisation, men tend to be less good at the 'sacrificial' bit, ie not getting off their behind and helping with the washing up, and women tend to be less good at the 'submit' bit, ie they end up trying to control by nagging or manipulating.
That's a huge generalisation, of course, and should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I was under the impression that looking at the "women submit" bit is completely missing the point.
When Paul was writing his letters there were various "household codes" so everybody in that day and age expected that the good and decent thing was for women, children, slaves all to submit - they were of lower status and so that was how it was.
Where Paul was completely revolutionary at the time (as I understood it when I was studying) was that he was saying that those in power had responsibilities as well. Instead of doing as they please husbands, parents and slave owners should treat their charges well. He's added that both parties should submit to one another.
I think its a fantastic text and really exciting to see the norms of the day turned on their heads and all that. I hate how its been used to mean almost the opposite of what it seems was intended
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Chou, Paul specifically says that that is the reason why he recommends celibacy (the nature of the times they were living in, I mean). See 1 Cor 7:
quote:
25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
32I would like you to be free from concern.
Note that at least part of this advice on marriage and celibacy Paul specifically marks as his own opinion, and not a direct revelation from the Lord. (not that I'd discount it, but neither would I put it on the same level as "love your neighbor" or what have you.) As for the lustfulness thing, Paul was speaking rather plainly (as he usually does!) about the fact that the vast majority of the human race CAN'T maintain chastity outside of marriage--it takes a physical oddity or a supernatural gift. "Because there is so much immorality about" in the pagan cultures of the Roman Empire, it is best NOT to force yourself to live against your God-given nature. If that nature finds it difficult to do without sex, regard that as an indication from God that you should get married and deal with that appetite properly. Otherwise one day you'll be passing the temple of Venus and, um, well . . .
Paul's no idiot. He's a realist.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
I am struck by the logical disconnect in Fr Oden's justification:
quote:
During yesterday’s sermon Mr Oden said he wished to make it clear that he did not believe women were “weaker intellectually” but that it was “an eternal principle that women are physically weaker than men”.
Why should physical weakness carry with it any implication of submission in intellectual issues, which are the examples he gives? There would be more logic if he was calling for physical submission, e.g. to men's 'conjugal rights', but maybe he expects that too. In which case English law might have something to say to him.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
in a marriage, someone is going to have to have the casting vote when you reach absolute deadlock (which is hopefully very rare). Either that or the marriage itself dissolves. Designating one gender is one way of solving the issue. I suppose it could have been handled differently, women could have been designated rather than men, or all marriages could have been tri-unions to allow tie breakers....
You state it so bluntly. Either the man gets the deciding vote OR the entire marriage breaks up. You make it sound like a consitutional crisis in parliament!
Why does it need to be written in stone that every time there's a deadlock one or other HAS to have the deciding vote? Surely a fairer way would just be to flip a coin! It's just as arbitrary a solution and neatly removes all suggestion that a man's vote always trumps a woman's. Why should one person have a life-long trump card based purely on what they have in their pants? It seems completely ridiculous.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Pre-cambrian: quote:
Why should physical weakness carry with it any implication of submission in intellectual issues, which are the examples he gives?
Maybe the answer is to keep a pet elephant around for tie-breakers.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chou
Shipmate
# 14103
|
Posted
I most humbly apologize o Mousethief ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Emma Louise said:
quote:
Where Paul was completely revolutionary at the time (as I understood it when I was studying) was that he was saying that those in power had responsibilities as well. Instead of doing as they please husbands, parents and slave owners should treat their charges well. He's added that both parties should submit to one another.
I think its a fantastic text and really exciting to see the norms of the day turned on their heads and all that. I hate how its been used to mean almost the opposite of what it seems was intended
My study Bible claims that the reason Paul was so harsh on women speaking in the Temple and covering their heads etc was because many women had converted from Mithra worship and were used to running the whole show! So obviously needed to be put in their rightful place
I suppose my real underlying fear with what Paul says is that once you make sexuality and family concerns the distractions of second class Christians, as unlike most mammals (i believe) it is more often the case that it is the human female who attracts the mate with her plumage, it’s women who suffer. We become the distraction - our bodies and our concerns, (and I’m guessing that’s where the Muslim stance comes from). I don’t believe I’m saying it, but on reflection the OT seems so much more inclusive of women because family, bloodline, childbirth etc were held in the highest esteem. Song of Songs all the way I say! Pride in parenting by adoption or birth!
Posts: 51 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
You should read the Acts of Paul and Thekla sometime...
(it's one of those wacky tales that didn't quite make the canon; it's got some interesting perspectives on sexuality and marriage)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chou:
My study Bible claims that the reason Paul was so harsh on women speaking in the Temple and covering their heads etc was because many women had converted from Mithra worship and were used to running the whole show! So obviously needed to be put in their rightful place
Well, your study Bible has obviously just made that up themselves since no one actually knows what Mithra worship practices were like. In any case it's pretty unlikely women ran it or were even involved since it was largely a soldier's cult.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chou
Shipmate
# 14103
|
Posted
Noooo, I'd better not be mistaking dreams for memories again ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Blase posting is not good. I will endeavour to dig up where i read that and to check if i have misrepresented the claim (no doubt I have). If I'm right i will expose said study Bible. I have an image of the text in my head with temple prostitutes and priestesses involved hmm. Perhaps I was corrupting into a naughty emoticon worthy 'argument from authority - well my Bible said' thing...a dull memory of once being told there was a cultural reason why women were talking when they should have been listening and Paul was correcting it.
I stand by the rest though.
I saw the Books that didn't get into the Bible history channel documentary which spoke of Paul and Thekla, how reliable that was i don't know.
Posts: 51 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Paul and Thekla, interestingly, is one of the early Christian writings that talks about posthumous salvation. I've never read it myself, just the bits that refer to p.s. (as quoted in a book about same).
I've heard so many "historical" explanations of various weird things that Paul says, my default reaction is "that's nice." They all start to sound like stabs in the dark.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
...
Why does it need to be written in stone that every time there's a deadlock one or other HAS to have the deciding vote? Surely a fairer way would just be to flip a coin! It's just as arbitrary a solution and neatly removes all suggestion that a man's vote always trumps a woman's. Why should one person have a life-long trump card based purely on what they have in their pants? It seems completely ridiculous.
I guess that's what I'm getting at; it would be much better if they talked it through and each felt as though they were equal partners in the relationship.
I'm well aware that there are some women who don't want this though; in Rev Oaten's town of Sevenoaks, when it hit the news one woman responded in the Comments section of the local paper, saying
quote:
I am very happy to let my husband be in charge of everything. He steers our family - from what we eat for supper to where we go on holiday to what car I am allowed to drive. I know it is not fashionable but I see my role as being to look after our children and keep the house clean and tidy.
This is a relationship that doesn't look in the least equal. Have they never disagreed about the right way to look after the kids, or clean the hosue? Then what? Does she get the say, because it's 'her domain' or is hubby still in charge?
I suppose these are still smaller points in the larger question of understanding how we submit to each other, and whether we are following Christ's example.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
There is usually little argument in such cases over who gets to do the "tidying", but from what I've see, the lord of the house who lords it over her to such an extent usually feels quite free to criticize the efforts.
Frankly, I see such households as a species of emotional bdsm. And between consenting adults whatever goes...
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
You state it so bluntly. Either the man gets the deciding vote OR the entire marriage breaks up. You make it sound like a consitutional crisis in parliament!
Did you even read my post? I suggested several alternative ways it could have been set up, and the word you quote as 'the man' was actually "someone". I appreciate that you hate the idea--I think I've figured that out by now--but you needn't take out your ire on me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
In the Orthodox Church, we always interpret the rest of the Scriptures through the lens of the gospels. To understand Paul's writings on marriage, you can go to the Gospel of Matthew:
quote:
Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
The husband, who is called to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, even giving up his life for her, is to be his wife's servant. If the husband wants to be the ruler of the household, then he must, because of the depths of his love, become the slave of everyone in it.
St. John Chrysostom, when speaking on Paul's teachings on marriage, said that the husband cannot demand his wife's obedience, as if she were a slave. If he does that, he dishonors her and shames himself. When Paul says that the wife is to submit to her husband, she is talking to the wife -- he is asking her to do something voluntarily, of her own free will. He's not telling her husband to take it from her by coercion or force.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
I have only known one couple who really professed to do the 'headship' thing in daily life. Obviously no-one knows what really goes on in a marriage, but my impression of the couple was that the wife usually got her way, largely through emotional manipulation. I don't think she even realised that's what she was doing.
Remember 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'? "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And the neck can turn the head any way she likes!"
I did see an episode of Wife Swap USA with con-evo and 'liberal' couples, which totally shocked me. OK, I know they go for dramatic extremes on that programme, but the model of household the con-evos went for was so bizarre I had trouble believing there were families who actually lived that way.
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
When we moved in together I said it was on condition that we shared all chores.
He submitted.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We married two years later. I think mutual care and concern matter - whether you are sharing a flat with friends or are married to the one you share the space with. For us, with two adult sons in the house that's even more crucial imo.
...
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
When PaulW and I went to see the vicar before our wedding he asked whether I wanted to say the obey bit in the vows. I said 'not really' and then there was this momentary pause before Paul said, 'can I obey instead?'.
Unfortunately this was not apparently an option!
Auntie Doris
Surely the reason men don't say the 'obey' bit is because it's taken for granted that they just will?
I always make a point of treating Mrs Albertus as if she were my equal....
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Hardly the way to treat one's betters....
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
On the contrary. Betters need to be knocked down a peg.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Depends on who you regard as your betters....
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Looked like you were making that call.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
It's all relative...frankly, I don't care. s smile because it's generally the husband who claim to give the wife due consideration; wives are generally too smart for that-fundies excepted, and the smart fundie ladies who say otherwise are liars.
Irrelevant to you and me as I'm Catholic and your and your amiable spouse have gone beyond fundieism.
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
