Ship of Fools: Ephesians 5:22... Wives, submit to your husbands

Thread: Ephesians 5:22... Wives, submit to your husbands Board: Chapter & Worse / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=000020

Posted by Simon (# 1) on :

Verse nominated by Louise

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22, in context)

Louise comments: For their weddings, most people choose that nice bit in Corinthians all about love. Unfortuanately at my brother's wedding they chose this instead! I watched with gritted teeth as my brother was told that he was the head of the marriage and my new sister in law was to "bite her tongue" if she ever disagreed with him! This is my worst verse because it takes the campaign for women's rights back about 100 years!

How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!

[ 21. August 2009, 08:22: Message edited by: Simon ]

Posted by guinness girl (# 4391) on :

If I had a penny for every time I'd defended this verse in context to someone I would have at least a pocketful of change by now. It's all about context and not ripping a verse away from what surrounds it and trying to judge it on its own. I suspect that all the supporting arguments for this verse wander into dead horse territory, but FWIW - wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, but:

that doesn't mean they can't have a good old debate before the final decision is made!
husbands are supposed to love their wives "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". That's some mighty wide, deep and sacrificial love, and is just as much part of the 'bargain' as the wife's submission.

I have been to numerous weddings where this has been chosen for the reading. IME, it has always been explained thoroughly and the husband's responsibility to the wife emphasised more strongly, if anything. I think as biblical pre-nups go, this is a pretty darn good one...! [Biased]

Posted by Lossky come home (# 14894) on :

I remember my Greek teacher, Katherine Ross reading this passage in college chapel. In her 80s by this point, she had served with the SOE during the war - so nobody felt inclined to argue when she concluded with, "This is definitely not the Word of the Lord."

[ 31. July 2009, 13:58: Message edited by: Lossky come home ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

This verse is one of those that bother me, even IN context. I mean great that the guy has a role too and his role isn't easy either. But it doesn't change the fact that Christ is surely far superior and more perfect than the church, and thus by implicature so is a husband far superior to his wife. Love your wife as Christ loved the church? So correct her, scold her, know better than her, don't tell her the whole story because she couldn't handle it. Erm, not a thing like what I'm looking for in a marriage!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Gwai, anybody who uses the verse that way is committing a classic logical fallacy and deserves a rhetorical smackdown. Analogies are only reliably useful on the particular point for which they were intended; nothing ever corresponds exactly to something else, and so every analogy breaks down when pushed to far, as you illustrate. In this case,any man fool enough to think he corresponds to Christ in any way but the need to love sacrificially deserves the blowback he's going to get from his wife.

I mean, really. Tell such an idiot that if he thinks the analogy in this verse means he is entitled to lord it over his wife, hide things from her, order her about, and etc., well, then he can go right out and get crucified as well. I'll bring the spikes.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I mean, really. Tell such an idiot that if he thinks the analogy in this verse means he is entitled to lord it over his wife, hide things from her, order her about, and etc., well, then he can go right out and get crucified as well. I'll bring the spikes.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

I agree with the verse as much as I do with the one advising hosts to give their daughters to strangers within the gates.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Say what? Reference, please.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Lamb Chopped, I know people would definitely say that if necessary, they would be crucified for their wives. But as thiings are now, they know better than their wives as Christ knew better than the church. They will make the decisions when there is a conflict, as Christ would, etc. Problem for me is that I believe in an equal relationship in marriage, but I don't think the church's relationship with Christ could ever even approach equality!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, I was trying to use humor to make the serious point that one can never push an analogy too far without creating nonsense (like the kind you mention). Occasionally sarcasm breaks through a self-important idiot's ... idiocy, if he isn't too far gone, and causes him to re-examine his thinking. Unfortunately, those that ARE too far gone react exactly as you've described. In which case the only thing to do is to grab your girlfriend, drag her off to a bar somewhere, and do your damndest to talk her out of marrying the jerk. (been there, done that)

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

What the more fundamentalist Bible-readers never seem to recognize, in their efforts to make the Bible come out right vis-a-vis their own cultural preferences/prejudices, are the other texts in the Epistles that call for mutual submission and service of one to another within the Christian community. It's just unfortunate that, on one hand, the authors didn't use smack-in-the-face, unequivocal parallel language in describing this type of mutuality, and that on the other, other texts assume a gender-unequal society (as well as a society of slaves and masters) as a human norm. Context, context, context.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

The issue modern enthusiasts for wifely submission seem to dance around is WHY women should submit to their husbands. Before circa. 1900 they were quite happy to say that women were inferior in certain ways, but even hardcore con evos seem to have dropped that one. Given that my husband is no more or less able than me, I'm not entirely sure why I'm meant to be the obedient one.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

So much depends on what is meant by "submission". I defer to Mr. Lamb (particularly in public), but I do this knowing that a) he isn't going to abuse the fact, b) I more or less rule the home front anyway, c) he respects me and in no way thinks me inferior, nor does he allow others to treat me that way, and d) it's very rare that a disagreement comes up where I even have to defer, since we generally reach a consensus privately. He in turn is very comfortable saying "Talk to my wife about that, she handles the x" (money /repairs /healthcare /major purchases /what-have-you).

In the rare cases where he insists on something pigheaded (weird paint color for the car?) I roll my eyes and let him get on with it. Who's going to care in a hundred years?

In the extremely rare cases where he insists on something either dangerous or wrong, I spit in his eye.

It seems to me that this is Scriptural. But I confess, I have a good husband. It could be a nightmare with someone else.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

As for "why I'm supposed to be the obedient one," I'm going to offend everyone here. [Razz]

I think first of all that there has to be SOME protocol for the rare cases where husband and wife can't agree, since if no one has a casting vote, you'll be deadlocked forever.

As for why the wife, well... [whispers] I THINK it's because so many men have a psychological weak spot women mostly don't have. We're used to submitting to others--our parents, teachers, bosses, etc.--without having to worry that someone is going to call our (wo)manhood into account because of it. Our core identity isn't threatened when some fool starts taunting us in an effort to get us to rebel. No one made fun of us in early childhood for "being tied to Mommy's apron strings" or told us that we were "acting like a boy." Since both Mom and we were female, we always understood that power and submission were not gender-related. As children we were weak; as women we would be (more) powerful. But we would always be female. We never needed to prove ourselves that way.

But a little boy often faces a different scenario. When he's trying to break away from parental dominance and show his independence (age 3, maybe?), it's usually Mom who symbolizes that power and dominance, since she's the one he has most contact with. (the others are often female teachers). So for little boys, "obeying Mom" sometimes becomes equivalent to "being powerless, being a wuss" and "not a real man." This is all complete idiocy, but you can see how a grade school child might swallow it.

And sadly, some never grow out of it--they continue to worry on some deep, subconscious level that submitting to a woman's authority is equivalent to being the unmanly wusses their playmates once accused them of being. Most of them are very decent blokes by now; consciously they know this is a pile of crap; but early fears die hard. And under stress, they pop up again at the most inappropriate moments. (Remind me to tell you about my instinctive reaction to meeting my son's school principal. Yes, Ma'am, no, Ma'am, right away, Ma'am! [Big Grin]

)

Now God obviously knows human psychology. I rather suspect that this problem might be one reason why he gave women the more overt role of cross-gender submission. So many men aren't strong enough to cope with it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh dear, Bad Lamb Chopped. The above is 90% cribbed from Walter Ong, S. J. Fighting for Life and from his course lectures.

Posted by Nunzia (# 4766) on :

Thanks for the attribution, LC. Now I know who to blame.

So, assuming the description of mans psychological weakness is even valid, you're saying that instead of confronting this weakness, instead of transforming us, instead of challenging the world's ideas about what a man should be, that God has issued a command that validates those ideas.

Imagine if He operated that way with everything.
He'd end up with a church that is virtually indistinguishable from the world around it.

Oh, wait!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nunzia:
Thanks for the attribution, LC. Now I know who to blame.

Ok, that made me smile.

The rest of your post was exactly what was bothering me, that I couldn't put my finger on, about LC's post.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for "why I'm supposed to be the obedient one," I'm going to offend everyone here. I think first of all that there has to be SOME protocol for the rare cases where husband and wife can't agree, since if no one has a casting vote, you'll be deadlocked forever.

As for why the wife, well... [whispers] I THINK it's because so many men have a psychological weak spot women mostly don't have. We're used to submitting to others--our parents, teachers, bosses, etc.--without having to worry that someone is going to call our (wo)manhood into account because of it. Our core identity isn't threatened when some fool starts taunting us in an effort to get us to rebel. No one made fun of us in early childhood for "being tied to Mommy's apron strings" or told us that we were "acting like a boy." Since both Mom and we were female, we always understood that power and submission were not gender-related. As children we were weak; as women we would be (more) powerful. But we would always be female. We never needed to prove ourselves that way.

But a little boy often faces a different scenario. When he's trying to break away from parental dominance and show his independence (age 3, maybe?), it's usually Mom who symbolizes that power and dominance, since she's the one he has most contact with. (the others are often female teachers). So for little boys, "obeying Mom" sometimes becomes equivalent to "being powerless, being a wuss" and "not a real man." This is all complete idiocy, but you can see how a grade school child might swallow it.

And sadly, some never grow out of it--they continue to worry on some deep, subconscious level that submitting to a woman's authority is equivalent to being the unmanly wusses their playmates once accused them of being. Most of them are very decent blokes by now; consciously they know this is a pile of crap; but early fears die hard. And under stress, they pop up again at the most inappropriate moments. (Remind me to tell you about my instinctive reaction to meeting my son's school principal. Yes, Ma'am, no, Ma'am, right away, Ma'am! )

Now God obviously knows human psychology. I rather suspect that this problem might be one reason why he gave women the more overt role of cross-gender submission. So many men aren't strong enough to cope with it.

LC, you're making alot of assumptions about gender here. As a western woman in my twenties I'm no more "used to" submitting to others than a man my age would be. In fact I've never been treated differently on grounds of gender in any aspect of my life (so my first encounter with headship theology was a very, VERY sharp shock [Biased]

). And my identity is bound up with my independence in a way that you seem to think is unique to men. Nor does my husband have any issues with me exercising authority. So all in all I'm a bit confused. No offense (I really respect what you to have say about all sorts of things), but your post seems to confirm the idea that there just aren't any arguments for female obedience left*.

* except the bizarre one that women should submit because we're actually spiritually superior to men, which just seems rude to guys.

[ 23. August 2009, 21:49: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Ha! I KNEW I'd be barbecue. [Razz]

For what it's worth, I'm a Western woman in my early forties, grew up in a non-Christian family in multi-cultural Southern California, so I'm not a product of any "headship theology" group either. And generally, I disagree with them. If submission is imposed from without, it seems to me to be a perversion.

The closest I can get to what I'm talking about is the relationship between Kirk and Spock in the original Star Trek series. They were definitely equals--if anything, Spock was considerably more "equal" than Kirk. And fully capable of command, whether in emergencies or lifelong. Also capable of seeing and saying when Kirk was being an idiot. But Spock had no interest in trying to wrest the captain's chair from Kirk--it wasn't something he was interested in. And as far as I recall, Kirk didn't go around worrying that Spock or anyone else was going to try.

As for the idea of God accommodating human weakness--you have to remember that this is the result of the Fall. "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" I take to be a prophecy, not an ordainment. God is telling them that gender relations are going to be fucked up for the next zillion years. So what Paul is saying is adapted, not to the unfallen world God created and is recreating, but to the very fallen world in which we live.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

For those of us who don't take Genesis as literal history (which would include most Jews I know), that story seems more descriptive than prescriptive.

I don't have a dog in this fight due to the makeup of my household, but I will say that, despite conservatives' insistence that egalitarianism and consensus decision-making within a household are somehow too difficult to achieve so one individual has to have "veto" power over the other -- our household works very well indeed. We naturally have different interests and different competencies, and we sort out our tasks accordingly. If it comes down to some equally odious or difficult task, we take turns or work on it together. It's not that we never have disagreements, but our disagreements aren't about getting one's way.

Frankly, if I were a man I'd feel rather insulted at the insinuation that I have some particularly tender place in my psyche that can't tolerate not getting my way.

And I'd also note that in socially conservative households of my acquaintance (which would be many, including my own family milieu), disempowered women play a lot of mind-fornicating with their menfolk to get around their stated "obedience." I don't know about you, but as for me and my house I'd rather live with honesty and transparency than game-playing.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't play those games. Do we have to import that idea?

quote:
Frankly, if I were a man I'd feel rather insulted at the insinuation that I have some particularly tender place in my psyche that can't tolerate not getting my way.

That's not what I was saying. Rather, that everyone has their vulnerabilities, and in some cases whole classes of people tend to exhibit similar vulnerabilities again and again. Patterns exist, and vulnerabilities are not randomly and equally distributed throughout the whole human population. That's not a new idea--it's the basis of a whole lot of things, from things as profound as medical diagnosis to as mundane as the proper way to plan a first day at preschool.

Nor am I saying that all men have this issue. They don't. But will anyone disagree that in general terms more men have trouble coping with being under the authority of women than vice versa? Or do you put that fact down entirely to the influence of a pernicious patriarchal upbringing, and consider that the proper kind of culture would result in identical male/female attitudes?

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Nor am I saying that all men have this issue. They don't. But will anyone disagree that in general terms more men have trouble coping with being under the authority of women than vice versa? Or do you put that fact down entirely to the influence of a pernicious patriarchal upbringing, and consider that the proper kind of culture would result in identical male/female attitudes?

I don't wish to pile on, but I think the key here is the phrase "in general terms." The thing is, we're talking about a small difference in a very big group here (all men/women), and ISTM that the standard deviation of those bell curves makes the difference in averages look insignificant.

You said earlier that you don't play the sort of games that LutheranChik described. That means that, even if they are a problem in general terms, they aren't relevant to you. The same for the male insecurity bit, for those men that don't conform to that stereotype.

- Chris.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
But will anyone disagree that in general terms more men have trouble coping with being under the authority of women than vice versa? Or do you put that fact down entirely to the influence of a pernicious patriarchal upbringing, and consider that the proper kind of culture would result in identical male/female attitudes?

Yes and yes. I honestly don't know a man in my circles of friends (and several of my male friends are exs) who feels uncomfortable being under the authority of a woman. Most of my male friends are twenty-something university-educated men from fairly liberal backgrounds. They're probably the first really post-feminist generation and they seem pretty happy and secure in their own identities as men living equally with women. Every boss my husband's had has been female. On the other hand no woman I know outside evo circles would tolerate being under a man's authority in marriage. If I told my family and friends that I intended submitting to my husband they'd probably section me. So yes, I do think that male issues with female authority are cultural. I think our differing perceptions might be a pond thing. Mainstream American culture is much more traditional regarding gender than Europeans are used to. Even quite liberal American friends of mine are mildly shocked by the idea of women keeping their surnames on marriage, whereas my friends are almost surprised if you don't.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But will anyone disagree that in general terms more men have trouble coping with being under the authority of women than vice versa?

I will disagree with that. No-one likes being under authority at all (well, no-one normal anyway) but being under male authority arouses different negative emotions from being under female authority. Men are more likely to see men as rivals, so there is an inevitable sense of competition between men and their male bosses that is often lacking between men and a female boss.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yerevan, you may be right. there may be some kind of pond difference going on. And I AM living in the Midwest, so...

I'm also wondering about whether maybe I'm using the word submission to mean something rather different than some of you all. I seriously doubt that if any of you got to know us in real life, you'd find anything in our marriage sectionable, or even noticeably odd. I don't walk around ten paces behind him, saying "yes, dear" like a broken record, and we certainly have our fights. Had one last night, in fact. But I'm at a loss to explain any more clearly. I'll take one last stab--maybe I could put it better by saying that Mr. LC doesn't feel threatened by me, even though I am eminently threatening? Oh dear, that didn't come out right...

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

LC, I understand what you mean about misunderstandings of submission. The women I know who practise wifely submission actually aren't very 'submissive' in many areas of their lives. Part of my issue is that the type of submission advocated now is very watered down compared to what would have been practised in the 1st century, when IIRC wives were the property of their husbands under Roman Law. There are some con evos in the US who take submission to its logical conclusion (ie not allowing women to work at all as they might be placed under the authority of a man other than their husband). Horrible though that is, it seems more logical than the very mild form of submission practised in most evo circles. I'm glad con evos have stopped arguing that women are inferior and watered down the worst aspects of submission, but it does leave headship theology looking a bit incoherent.

PS I admire you for sticking with this! Defending headship on the ship is a lonely posting...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Um, maybe THAT's the problem! I gather there is an established movement called "headship," but frankly, I've never been anywhere near it (let alone of it) and what very little I know of it smells... wrong. But clearly I'm coming off as someone who belongs to it. And I'm not really sure how to differentiate my position, seeing as I'm not all that clear what THEIRS is...

All I'm trying to do is put into practice what Paul says and other bits of the Bible support here and there, using the intelligence God gave me. It seems to me that anything that leads directly and by a v. short path to abuse is a Bad Thing, and so I conclude that "yes, dear"ing my husband on every occasion is NOT what Paul was recommending. (Heck, if he were, he wouldn't have addressed the women at all, as being too lowly for an apostle to bother with. Instead he would have told the men to whip them into shape)

I also find any amount of support in the Bible for what we call "equality of the sexes," and Paul can't be contradicting that (here we get into the whole inerrancy thing, must avoid). So I ask myself, given that women are equal to men in God's eyes and obviously as gifted, talented, etc etc. etc., then what is this "submission" he is speaking of?

At which point I go looking for other examples of the willing submission of one equal to another, and come up with... the Trinity. And suddenly the idea of complete freedom and acknowledged equality at the same time as willing submission doesn't look like a contradiction anymore. Or like a burden or a debasement.

Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :

I have personal reasons for despising this verse (as I've mentioned elsewhere, this is a surefire way to tell if you're at a Truly Awful Southern Wedding), but, the verse itself . . .
I'm not sure what I think about the message, even in context, even less now after having read over some of the replies. I've always hated how it was used by some to justify turning women into servile domestic servants and baby factories, but have enjoyed Paul's image of absolute submission in the Church--especially submission to someone who is called to love you as Christ loved the world. On the one hand, the idea of anyone submitting to me is slightly comical; on the other, loving another person as deeply as Christ does is deeply moving, perhaps (in retrospect) one of my many favorite images in the Bible.
But, in the end, I'm not sure that I like one of the ways this verse can be interpreted-and has been-at all. It still leaves a very, very bad taste in my mouth for many reasons.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

One commentary suggests that re-interpreting the passage to enjoin both partners equally to love and submission, which is much better than ignoring it altogether.

Posted by Woodworm (# 13798) on :

quote:
If I had a penny for every time I'd defended this verse in context to someone I would have at least a pocketful of change by now. It's all about context and not ripping a verse away from what surrounds it and trying to judge it on its own. I suspect that all the supporting arguments for this verse wander into dead horse territory, but FWIW - wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, but:If I had a penny for every time I'd defended this verse in context to someone I would have at least a pocketful of change by now. It's all about context and not ripping a verse away from what surrounds it and trying to judge it on its own. I suspect that all the supporting arguments for this verse wander into dead horse territory, but FWIW - wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, but:

that doesn't mean they can't have a good old debate before the final decision is made!
husbands are supposed to love their wives "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". That's some mighty wide, deep and sacrificial love, and is just as much part of the 'bargain' as the wife's submission.

I have been to numerous weddings where this has been chosen for the reading. IME, it has always been explained thoroughly and the husband's responsibility to the wife emphasised more strongly, if anything. I think as biblical pre-nups go, this is a pretty darn good one...!

Like arguments about male "headship", these defences always seem to me thoroughly dishonest.

I have never found any difference between the way married Christians who defend this verse act within their marriage, compared to the rest of us.

In some marriages the wife is indisputably the leader and the husband the willing follower. In others it is the other way around. Most marriages just muddle through, reaching decisions based on strength of feeling, compromise, what mood you're each in, who did the washing-up last etc, etc.

Glossing the verse to make it OK is just doe-eyed piety. It has nothng to do with how anyone acts in practice.

Sorry, bit of a bugbear! I had to endure a future sister-in-law lecturing me on the "true meaning" of the verse, before going on to piously promise to obey my brother. They have a very happy marriage - but the idea that she has submitted to my dear bro in reality is just crap.

Big-up my father-in-law, for 40 years a parish priest. He used to refuse to allow brides to promise to obey, on the grounds that he wouldn't stand by while they made a promise they were going to break.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
I have never found any difference between the way married Christians who defend this verse act within their marriage, compared to the rest of us.

Thats been my experience too. My con evo in-laws are a good example. The man might be in charge theoretically, but there's no doubt who's the dominant personality on a day to day basis.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

But this isn't about dominant personalities, is it? I take it to be about handling actual conflict. If the overall course of the marriage is smooth, with little conflict between the spouses, I don't see why it matters a rat's ass which personality is stronger.

In fact, it's been my observation that most couples I know have "dominant personalities" in certain spheres of activity, while their spouses are dominant in others. And the spheres of activity vary from marriage to marriage and are not predictable on the basis of religion or anything much else.

In my marriage, for example, in spite of my commitment to Eph 5 and all that, it so happens that I am the one who handles the money, plays Bad Cop in discipline situations, does the mending, yells at various government entities, and sees to most of the decorating. My husband dominates in the area of mechanical and car repair, cooking, spoiling the kid rotten, and beating up muggers. IMHO none of this has anything to do with Eph 5. It's just where our gifts lie.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

The idea that you should submit to your husband as to the Lord doesn't seem to leave much room for the wife to be dominant in anything, yet most 'submissive' wives aren't actually that submissive. My argument goes something like this:

The epistles taken logically and literally assign an inferior, obedient position to women. Modern evangelicals have grown up in a society that doesn't tolerate the idea of female obedience or inferiority. They're instinctively bothered by it, but don't quite feel able to abandon the obedience stuff. So in practise they pay lip service to obedience while practising a very, very watered down form and trying to decouple it from any notion of inferiority. This leaves them in the confused position of barring women from any position of authority in the church or the home, while busily insisting that they really are equal and that they can have as much authority as they like in secular government or the workplace.
The result looks pretty incoherent and unconvincing from where I'm sitting, but YMMV.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If the overall course of the marriage is smooth, with little conflict between the spouses...

On which planet does that happen?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm not talking about tiffs, hissy fits and "Why the fuck did you do that?" arguments. I'm talking about the kind of conflict where (say) one spouse wants to move to California, while the other is determined to stay put. Or one is dead set on sending the sprats to a private school while the other ... etc. Real conflicts (as in "we have two incompatible intentions here", not "WTF did you do to the new car?" which is basically a catfight.)

I don't think many marriages, if any, avoid the WTF catfights and the hissy fits. And I really don't think those have much to do (if anything) with what Paul's discussing.

I DO think that it is possible to be married quite a long time before a major conflict of the "someone's going to have to back down or compromise" kind comes along. Much depends on how similar the spouses are in basic values and outlook.

But when that kind of conflict DOES come along, it's really helpful when you've got both spouses committed to putting the other first ("Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church... Wives, submit" and etc.).

As for strength of personality, again, I see nothing in Paul to suggest that this has anything to do with submission. Surely no one will call Jesus a wimp for submitting to the Father? And it's interesting that in the case of the married couple Priscilla and Aquila, Priscilla is always named first. It doesn't prove anything, of course, but it reminds me of certain couples I know where the wife is clearly the more vivid personality. (It's ALWAYS "Lisa and Dave," never the other way around. And yet Dave is not a wimp, just an accountant.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
The idea that you should submit to your husband as to the Lord doesn't seem to leave much room for the wife to be dominant in anything, yet most 'submissive' wives aren't actually that submissive. My argument goes something like this:

The epistles taken logically and literally assign an inferior, obedient position to women. Modern evangelicals have grown up in a society that doesn't tolerate the idea of female obedience or inferiority. They're instinctively bothered by it, but don't quite feel able to abandon the obedience stuff. So in practise they pay lip service to obedience while practising a very, very watered down form and trying to decouple it from any notion of inferiority. This leaves them in the confused position of barring women from any position of authority in the church or the home, while busily insisting that they really are equal and that they can have as much authority as they like in secular government or the workplace.
The result looks pretty incoherent and unconvincing from where I'm sitting, but YMMV.

First of all, that's not the way I read the Bible at all. There are plenty of strong women in both Testaments. They are honored for their work and not ignored or dismissed. Some of them have the temerity to argue with Jesus himself (e.g. Canaanite woman, woman at well, etc.) and get praised, not dissed, for it!

And that phrase "submitting as to the Lord" has got to be interpreted very, very narrowly indeed if we're not to MIS-interpret it. Clearly Paul wasn't expecting worship, for example. Nor do we hear of him forbidding Philip's daughters to prophesy in the church. Euodia and Syntyche are apparently leaders of some note, and he takes them to task, not for that leadership, but for conflict that is hurting the rest of the church. Lydia's home becomes the headquarters for the Christian church in her city (and we have no idea whether she was married or not; Luke doesn't bother to tell us). Priscilla teaches Apollos, who is not only a man, but a learned man of standing. Prominent women are mentioned again and again through the book of Acts as important converts, and the same kind of women appear to have supported Jesus' own ministry out of their own funds, and even to have followed him physically (and would I ever like to know how they managed that! But the Gospel writers don't tell us, apparently not finding it at all noteworthy--let alone scandalous).

I'm probably going on about this too long, but it bugs me when people say or imply that, because I'm a Christian who attempts to obey the words of Paul here, therefore I must be a doormat. I am most definitely NOT a doormat, as many a man has discovered to his cost. And I refuse to believe that "door-mattism" is what God, or even Paul, requires of me. It's not what I see in the Scriptures,* and it's not what I see working in real life either.

* I mean, heck. We're recommended to follow SARAH's example--and she was a piss-ant if there ever was one. She may have called Abraham "lord," but her general behavior and attitude suggest that she was a holy terror. Any lesser man than Abraham would have been scared shitless of her, I think.

Posted by DagonSlaveII (# 15162) on :

This is why I go back to the Greek.

Looking from NAS with Strongs, the word they use is subject.

Strangely enough, that same word (in English) is used for the previous verse.
Eph. 5:21 Upotassomenoi Which has more meaning than to subordinate, or obey.

That word is not found in the Greek in verse 22: Ephesians 5:22 It is context that makes the word a part of it: Scans literally as "This woman this (pertaining/belonging to one's self) (reference to male, either sexual or aged) as this (lord and master, could be God)" Basically, the same as the previous.

But going back to 21, Christians are to subject themselves to one another allhloiv which means more than one another, but to reciprocate.

Verse 24 is the clincher, we're to submit in everything. This is the hard verse, if there were any.

I could take the meaning of the verse to mean I'm supposed to subject myself sexually to my husband, but the previous to mean that we're to respect each other and all Christians.

Following verses continue on the same subject up to Children obeying parents. The word has some similarity (same root) to the one translated subject: upotassetani This word is generally used for obey or to listen to.

In the end, with the whole mess, I don't really quibble that much over the command of subjugation/subordination/submission. I have a very hard time obeying it. I married a man that has a hard time standing up to me, and I'm not good about letting him win arguments.

But then, my father has something interesting to point out on this subject, from the man's perspective: Men don't do too well until they are married. The most dangerous creature on the planet is single men, especially those who hang around on street corners in large groups. Sometimes he wonders if men are put in authority so that they can learn responsibility--because if men were not commanded to be anything, they'd leave it all to the women--especially home and church matters.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I find the idea of "obeying" a partner and a peer in a non-reciprocal way because I have an XX chromosome, because The.Bible.Tells.Me.So., irrational, unnecessarya and downright dysfunctional. My household, once again, works just fine with two competent adults engaging in consensus decision-making and shared responsibilities. If I were a societally disempowered 13-year-old child bride in the 1st century Mediterranean world, married off per societal norm to some older husband, egalitarianism might not be practicable; but most of us are not in situations like that.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

Any discussion of this verse with women present is a danger zone, so I'll just be brief:

As long as Christian women choose to approach this verse under the baggage of the "Lifetime Movie Network" context, then they will never understand Paul's positive message (within his cultural context, of course).

Posted by Hamp (# 15362) on :

Scholars believe that Paul had passed from the scene when someone wrote this in his name. The person who wrote this in Paul's name had the problem that Paul's churches(they were house churches) had grown to the point that they now appeared on the radar of the Roman world. This was a male dominated world. If the Church was to survive it would have to grow in a man's world. One has to ask himself what would he have done? Six of Paul's thirteen letters were probably not written by him. With out knowing some of the history of the Bible one can find many problems with it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
Scholars believe that Paul had passed from the scene when someone wrote this in his name.

Some do, some don't. Some think parts are by of Paul and parts by others.

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :

I love the example LC gave. I would gladly be somebody's "Spock" if I found my "Captain Kirk". But Captain Kirks are hard to find. Men who would sacrifice themselves gladly for the sake of their ship. the truth

Posted by Peterwf (# 13716) on :

My issue with this bit of the NT is where the translators have put the paragraph.
The previous verse is:
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

And if one were to start ones study at verse 18:

18Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

I then feel that the section is to do with not being puffed up with one spirituality, not putting oneself above others because one has a particular spiritual gift or leaning, and with getting along with others in ones church and ones spouse.

This is also in line with Paul's teaching on spirituality in Corinthians.

It's got naff all to do with subjugating any subsection of society.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Couple of random thoughts:

1. someone up-thread mentioned "in the 1st century, when IIRC wives were the property of their husbands under Roman Law." *IF* under Roman law a husband was punished for the deeds of the wife, could it be reasonable to remind wives not to use their freedom in Christ in ways that brought punishment to their husbands? That's a question not a comment.

2. Someone else mentioned "have enjoyed Paul's image of absolute submission in the Church." I don't know about you but for me "submission to God" is not a mindless unquestioning "yes Sir" but a rollicking active lot of laughing crying questioning asking for more information puzzling challenging fussing cheering. I'm not claiming to have mastered the concept of "submission to God" at all, but I'm convinced it's not about robotic response.

In the psalms, the whole range of human emotions is centrally part of the relationship with God.

Whatever submission refers to, whether individual or mutual, it is not the "blind obedience" too many "headship" people claim, even if "church response to God" is the model. Think about Abraham challenging God on how many righteous people it takes to save a whole city, and be sure to stick that challenge into any definition of "submitting to God"!

3. I read a book by - oh gosh I can't find it, it's not on my bookshelf! Oh dear. Some Methodist guy who has apparently written a lot about marriage. He took an approach I have never heard before: for both H and W, the marriage must come first. ANYTHING that tears at the marriage is to be given up. If H wants to play golf all day every Saturday and W hates being a golf widow, golf is tearing at the marriage so H should give up golf, put the marriage ahead of golf. (How's that for sacrificing his life for her! Lots of guys read it as physical end of life only, "I'll take a bullet for her but no way am I taking her chores just because she's tired.")

Obviously there's a middle ground, like H plays golf 3 hours at a good time for W to lunch with her girlfriends. Each gets to do something he or she really likes doing without annoying the other or leaving the other feeling dismissed.

The book said if H and W cannot agree on which of two alternatives to pursue - go to an action film or a romance movie, move for his promotion or stay for her job - then both alternatives are detrimental to the marriage and they should discard both and look for something else both can gladly endorse.

Wow. I have seen marriages break up over his or her "never" being home because of an intense hobby, over budget allocation disagreements, over whether his career or hers was the most important, over whether to live near her family or live where he could get a better job. If the marriage broke up, does that suggest the hobby, the budget item, the career, living near her Mom were more important than the marriage?

I see problems of potential manipulation, of disparate value systems, etc, but of all the (not too many) books and (many) sermons I've been through on marriage, this is the first that insisted the marriage must come first, for both. Mutual submission indeed, submission to the concept that the marriage is the most important thing in the two people's lives.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But it doesn't change the fact that Christ is surely far superior and more perfect than the church, and thus by implicature so is a husband far superior to his wife. Love your wife as Christ loved the church? So correct her, scold her, know better than her, don't tell her the whole story because she couldn't handle it. Erm, not a thing like what I'm looking for in a marriage!

I think one reason that some people have a problem with this passage is that they have a low view of the Church, resulting in a low view of marriage.

If you keep reading a few verses ahead, you find out that the Church is glorious, without spot or wrinkle, unblemished. In other passages, we learn that the Church is Christ's body. The Fathers teach us that Christ came to make us, his Church, to be by grace what he is by nature. Christ is superior to the Church by nature, but he has made her his equal by grace.

If you keep a high view of the Church in mind, it's possible that the passage would not sound as onerous.

Furthermore, you will find nothing in thhe Scriptures or in Tradition to justify the idea that Christ scolds the Church, or withholds information from her. Far from it, we are told that he has sent his Spirit to make sure the Church has all truth. He doesn't hold anything back.

The definitive interpretation of this passage in the Eastern church is a homily by St. John Chrysostom. He is adamant that the submission a wife owes her husband is not the obedience of a slave to a master, and in fact says that a husband who expects that sort of obedience is dishonoring and shaming his wife, and thereby dishonoring and shaming himself. The submission that is required is that of a free woman, given by her own choice. It can't be demanded by the husband, but only offered by the wife. If she is not free to say no, she cannot say yes. If she is not free to refuse, she cannot submit.

A husband, according to St. John, is not free to insult or abuse his wife. His obligation is to love his wife, doing whatever is needed for her wellbeing. There is no limit to that requirement, as there is no limit to Christ's love for the Church.

The wife's duty is more limited. All that is required of her, according to St. John, is not to stubbornly contradict her husband, not to challenge his authority in public in a way that's going to embarrass or humiliate him.

St. John says that, if the husband isn't satisfied with that, his only recourse is to love his wife more.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Interesting. This definitely does depend on your view of the church then. That is helpful. Still, what is meant by the Church besides collected Christians following in Christ's path? Even if we presume that only true Christians are part of the Church, still we are flawed. How can a Church of flawed people be flawless?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Interesting. This definitely does depend on your view of the church then. That is helpful. Still, what is meant by the Church besides collected Christians following in Christ's path? Even if we presume that only true Christians are part of the Church, still we are flawed. How can a Church of flawed people be flawless?

The Church is greater than the sum of her parts.

We are, each of us, sinful, foolish, weak, while the Church is none of those things. The Church is the Body of Christ. How can Christ's Body be other than what He is?

I don't know how it works, honestly. It's one of those incarnational mysteries. How can the bread and wine be Body and Blood? They just are, by the grace of God. And this is like that.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0