Christian Wives and Obediance

[DallasApple]

Agreed. It may happen to work for some, but overall, not a good lesson from the Good Book.

The problem is as someone else metioned the mans role is open to many grays of interpretation.

But there is the obvious.No one I know considers for example physical or verbal abuse "loving your wife as Christs the church"..Now I have met a few that say just because he isnt following his commands doesnt give her permission not to.But everyone I have talked to agrees that God doesnt expect a woman to submit to abuse.Leaving an abusive relationship is not rebellion.

But I will say..join a Christian only forum..and you will here the circle..of who goes first with the scriptures involving a woman "respecting" her husband.The men and "some" women will say that it doesnt say .."if he earns it"..or "only if he deserves it"
And submit doesnt say "only if you agree he is following Gods lead".(in the gray areas..the exceptions are like I mentioned abuse..or adultery..or even drug addiction).And also the scripture involving a "contensious" woman.Goes around in a circle ..who gets to interpret what is a contensious woman.

The idea that the woman is supposed to be "quiet and respectful" even if her husband has really gone and ****** her off or hurt her is quite frankly inhuman.

Love

Dallas

 

[Charity]

I can see a husband as being the leader or head of the house where it may concern religious beliefs....
I believe marriage to be a partnership that is suppose to be a lifelong commitment thus any important matters should be discussed and an agreement should be reached that is satisfactory to both partners. A Partnership is not a dictatorship and thus I don't think a woman should not be able to speak and present her pov.
I don't recall Jesus making the statement that women should be silent it was Paul who seemed to take this upon himself....He apparently wasn't married or I think his wife would have delivered him a quick slap to the head and ears....:slap:.....As you know only a single man would dare tell a woman to "keep silent"....Married men know better....that is like saying "sic em to a pit bull"....

I should hope that any man would be able to appreciate me for having some intelligence, fortitude and desire to make any decision wisely.....
If he wants a dummy then he should have married a ventriloquist....
There's my feelings on Christian wives and obedience.....

 

[sojourner]

The "out of context" charge is used by many Christians with whom I talk as a sort of silver bullet that they somehow feel will make the bad scripture go away. So, here's a little context for you, Sojourner:

We don't hoope to "make it go away." We do seek to understand why a magnanimous God, who became one of us in the person of Jesus (himself a liberal and magnanimous person, who loved everyone unconditionally), would be presented as so narrow. One has to weigh scripture and decide which carries the greater importance: messages of peace, love, and acceptance, or messages of judgment, damnation, and exclusion. It appears that Jesus always took the side of love and inclusion. So do I.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The problem is as someone else metioned the mans role is open to many grays of interpretation.

But there is the obvious.No one I know considers for example physical or verbal abuse "loving your wife as Christs the church"..Now I have met a few that say just because he isnt following his commands doesnt give her permission not to.But everyone I have talked to agrees that God doesnt expect a woman to submit to abuse.Leaving an abusive relationship is not rebellion.

But I will say..join a Christian only forum..and you will here the circle..of who goes first with the scriptures involving a woman "respecting" her husband.The men and "some" women will say that it doesnt say .."if he earns it"..or "only if he deserves it"
And submit doesnt say "only if you agree he is following Gods lead".(in the gray areas..the exceptions are like I mentioned abuse..or adultery..or even drug addiction).And also the scripture involving a "contensious" woman.Goes around in a circle ..who gets to interpret what is a contensious woman.

The idea that the woman is supposed to be "quiet and respectful" even if her husband has really gone and ****** her off or hurt her is quite frankly inhuman.

Love

Dallas

That was me, Lana. I mentioned that my criticism of the NT's teachings on marriage are that the expectations - as laid out by scripture specifically - are point-by-point specific for wives, but are quite vague for husbands. When this is paired with the spiritual authority granted solely to a husband and to the men of the church, as well as being granted the decision-making power, we have a situation where woman is caught in a very precarious position if she were to feel as if her husband is not caring for her properly. It is highly possible that the wife were to then question her own senses, her own feelings, her own perspective, and just trust the man no matter how little security she may feel, or how unsafe.

So I ask this question again, but in a different way: Does scripture point out instructions to the wife on her responsibility to assertively repudiate and reject a husband's behavior if he were to abuse her or rape her? I have not found any passages that commands that the wife disallow abusive behavior - that would infer that the wife share at least in some of the authority in the marriage, would it not?

I can say that in my own marriage, Steve acts more of the leader than I do save for one. When it comes to our intimate life, I always take the lead, and it's worked for us. But we also recognize that his leadership in the daily grind and in the larger decisions requires that he be more of a servant than a king - he provides for us, he takes care of me and gives me everything that I wish for. But I let him take the steering wheel knowing that he'll take me wherever I want to go. In that respect, it's very much a give-and-take. We recognize that if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. So we live by it.

We also recognize that this kind of set up doesn't work for everybody. Every family is different, and WE also change over time, too, so we're open to the ebb and flow of our own marriage.

However, I don't see this kind of servitude being expressed in the NT. I see the headship being granted to the husband, but it's the wife being instructed to do this and do that for the sake of the marriage and for the respect of her husband.........and that kind of relationship imo creates an atmosphere where it is all too easy to disrespect a woman's thoughts and perspectives. I'd prefer to see that if a wife is instructed by scripture to shut her mouth and submit to her husband in all decisions, then it ought to be spelled out specifically in scripture that a husband is to shut his mouth and give his wife what she wants.

Does it say that anywhere in the NT?

 

[DallasApple]

then it ought to be spelled out specifically in scripture that a husband is to shut his mouth and give his wife what she wants.

Not specifically.But the implications of "laying down his life" for her as Christ did would pretty much mean to me he is to sacrifice for her and put her needs before his.

Another point someone else made though thats pretty striking to me.Some of the instructions for men sound more like tolerating the woman when she is doing something wrong or because she has weaknesses or is "weak" in nature.And the "weaker vessell" I do not think is meaning "physically".

It doesnt say it that way for the women.It doesnt say.."wifes respect your husbands..being that they are fools and a wife needs to show him respect in order that he will be made holy and clean by her" "

Love

Dallas

 

[sojourner]

I have one other thing to say on this subject:

misogyny is not a Christian value.

 

[DallasApple]

When this is paired with the spiritual authority granted solely to a husband and to the men of the church, as well as being granted the decision-making power, we have a situation where woman is caught in a very precarious position if she were to feel as if her husband is not caring for her properly.

Right.Because its a monopoly.He holds all the real power.He decides for her..and he decides for himself what is best for her spiritually and physically.

Since she isnt the spirtual authority over herself..and definately not him.She can not "determine" for him that he is spirtually bankrupt.She can determine that for herself.(that he is spirtually in the wrong)..but as you said..if she believes she is "weaker" she may doubt her conclusions.Or even if she doesnt doubt her conclusions where does it say that "in that case" there is a reversal of authority.Or at the very least she is her own authority due to her conclusions he is not keeping her best interest in mind ahead of his own.

There are examples in the Bible of women being teachers..or spritual "leaders"..but then you get the explanation that that was due to an absence of a man being available to do the job.

Love

Dallas

 

[Mister Emu]

As you know only a single man would dare tell a woman to "keep silent"....Married men know better....that is like saying "sic em to a pit bull"....

The only things my Pitbulls are going to do if I say "sic em" is lick you...

If that is the reaction I am going to get...

I'll say that I don't believe that the Bible espouses abusive relationships, or staying in them...

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The only things my Pitbulls are going to do if I say "sic em" is lick you...

If that is the reaction I am going to get...

I'll say that I don't believe that the Bible espouses abusive relationships, or staying in them...

I can appreciate that, but according to the Bible, who gets to decide if the marriage is abusive or not? Who has the authority or the wisdom according to scripture to interpret behavior as Biblical or not? From what I have read, it certainly isn't the wife that is trusted with that kind of wisdom.

Not to belabor the point, but where is the wife commanded to disallow and/or reject abuse?

 

[blackout]

It would be absolutely and completely IMPOSSIBLE for me to live out a christian marriage.

In almost every way.(obedience, bisexuality, polyamory)
Just one more example of WHY I am no longer a christian.

And I am only still married because my husband finally decided to accept me AS I AM.
Who else could I be anyway?

I am finally happy. And my kids get to keep both their parents.
Go us! :rainbow1:

(our decision to stay together is a very recent one--
as he has demonstrated his acceptance... acceptably. )

 

[DallasApple]

I can appreciate that, but according to the Bible, who gets to decide if the marriage is abusive or not? Who has the authority or the wisdom according to scripture to interpret behavior as Biblical or not? From what I have read, it certainly isn't the wife that is trusted with that kind of wisdom.

Not to belabor the point, but where is the wife commanded to disallow and/or reject abuse?

It doesnt say that.But I guess you could look at the part of "in all things as unto the Lord"..Did Jesus abuse women?Physically or verbally?.Did He require people to follow Him or listen to Him through abusive behavior towards them?If He did not require that to demonstrate faith and obedience..then neither should it be required of a wife to a husband to demonstrate obedience and faithfulness as unto the Lord.

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

Would you say that a religion that insists on a womans submission and obediance is abusive?

I have actually heard a priest say that a woman should stay with an abusive husband no matter what, and if he kills her, then she's a martyr. He did let her off the hook if her children were in physical danger, too.

Insanity aside, I think living with a simpering, submissive little mouse who submits to you in all things and "reveres" you is bound to be less fun than it sounds like. A lot of spouses are just going to feel like smacking her (or him) across the mouth sometimes. Dominance and submission is only fun -- for either party -- if you have a choice.

 

[DallasApple]

I have actually heard a priest say that a woman should stay with an abusive husband no matter what, and if he kills her, then she's a martyr. He did let her off the hook if her children were in physical danger, too.

Insanity aside, I think living with a simpering, submissive little mouse who submits to you in all things and "reveres" you is bound to be less fun than it sounds like. A lot of spouses are just going to feel like smacking her (or him) across the mouth sometimes. Dominance and submission is only fun -- for either party -- if you have a choice.

Well..Jesus never beat anyone to death.In fact we all know He saved the woman from being stoned to death for payment of the crime of adultery.How then would He ask a "not guilty" woman to pay with her life?If Jesus on earth did not require it..why then in the name of His spirit would He?

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

Well..Jesus never beat anyone to death.

I don't think the teachings of Jesus are the problem here, and for once I don't think it's the teachings of Paul, either. It's the people who use the Bible not only to justify their sick behavior, but to mandate it for everybody. It is really not necessary to have one person who's in charge of everything. In fact, it probably makes marriage less beneficial to both parties. When you tell people that God requires them to live like that, you're going to have a lot of unnecessarily unhappy people.

 

[DallasApple]

Insanity aside, I think living with a simpering, submissive little mouse who submits to you in all things and "reveres" you is bound to be less fun than it sounds like. A lot of spouses are just going to feel like smacking her (or him) across the mouth sometimes. Dominance and submission is only fun -- for either party -- if you have a choice.

I think that would get pretty boring pretty quick.And I dont think thats why God gave women the same level of intelligence He gave men.It wasnt so she could reason with herself to shut up sit down and be quiet.Being an individual with opinions and unique talents does not equate to "disrespect" or contentiousness or disobedience.

Jesus was a man..and He never told women to shut up and be like a mouse around Him.He concerned Himself with their feelings and thoughts.Its been rumored..Mary Magdeline was someone He believed had spiritual capabilities and understanding above and beyond some men.And He didnt have to beat that into her either.

Love

Dallas

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I have actually heard a priest say that a woman should stay with an abusive husband no matter what, and if he kills her, then she's a martyr. He did let her off the hook if her children were in physical danger, too.

That's sick.

Insanity aside, I think living with a simpering, submissive little mouse who submits to you in all things and "reveres" you is bound to be less fun than it sounds like.

Working and living overseas I met a lot of guys who really like the submissive female relationship and end up dating or marrying Asian women. Then I went to work in Kazakhstan where the people look Asian but are actually a mix of Turkic and Mongol races. Now neither Turkish or Mongol women are known for their submissivness and, in fact, can be very aggressive. Several of the married guys who thought that they could have a girlfriend on the side easily like they did in Thailand or Singapore were very surprised when their new friend called up their wife for a little chat. (The fact that the HR department was staffed by local women having completely escaped their attention. ) Needless to say there were several divorces on that job.

One incident that made the news happened a little south of us. An American so upset his local girlfriend that she purchased a WWII era Soviet hand granade on the black market and chucked it at him. Luckily it had a 5 second fuse and he was able to get far enough away that the blast didn't hurt him.

For the record, I was married during this time and I'm still happily married to the same woman. There are those of us who honor our vows.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't think the teachings of Jesus are the problem here, and for once I don't think it's the teachings of Paul, either. It's the people who use the Bible not only to justify their sick behavior, but to mandate it for everybody. It is really not necessary to have one person who's in charge of everything. In fact, it probably makes marriage less beneficial to both parties. When you tell people that God requires them to live like that, you're going to have a lot of unnecessarily unhappy people.

No I understand..I have met men "hell bent" on "dominating" using Bible scriptures of the requirements of a wife.

One man..said that if he "decided" they should live simply..as in a tent in the woods...with one shirt and little food..then the wifes "duty" was to submit to that.This same man..thought that he should decide on a "bed time" for them.(what time he went to bed..she should go to bed).He took pictures of the dirty house.(she was a lousy housekeeper and he wasn't asking for much).One time she said to him calmly that she believed he was possessed..Which he then said "provoked him" to grab a pillow and hold it over her face.(only for a few seconds of course).And he only physically blocked her from leaving a room to get away from him once or twice..Because she was a "conflict avoider" and he was trying to help her face the "problems" she had.And he only locked her out of the house that ONE time..and it was only for about 20 minutes.

She was "contensious"..Their church..offered HER refuge..He demanded they leave the church.(as he was the spirtual head) because they were encouraging her to be "defiant" ..She had lost her way..She was not in Gods favor.

She left town..started her own business making dentures..and filed for divorce.

Love

Dallas

 

[Kathryn]

You know, there seems to be a lot of discussion about the ABUSE of the concept of biblical submission - using these passages to unfairly dominate a relationship, women confusing biblical submission with being mousy and subservient, etc.

These "old fashioned" dynamics of strong men and gentle women, protective men and soft, feminine wives, etc. actually DO WORK well in many marriages - and is that a BAD thing?

Why are submissive wives ridiculed or looked down upon? Why are "manly men" who enjoy home cooked meals most nights, having an attractive and rested wife meet them at the door, maybe even with a drink in hand, and with a dab of perfume at the nape of her neck - why is this seemingly ridiculed or considered irrelevent in today's society? Is there something wrong with these dynamics? Is there something wrong with a couple striving toward this pattern?

Sorry but I just don't see it. My husband LOVES for me to get home before him (which I usually do), and have dinner ready when he comes in. I make it a point to go freshen up, put on a little lipgloss and a cute shirt, and have a smile on my face when he comes in. He really does work very hard and goes beyond the expected for his family. I don't mind showing him gratitude in ways that HE wants to be shown that gratitude.

I also love to help him take his work boots off and give him a foot massage with peppermint cream. I kneel at his feet while I do this. Some would call this subservient, but it's really just the best position to give a foot massage in - I promise. He's in heaven!

I also watch my weight and try to keep myself as attractive as possible - because my husband really appreciates that too.

In return, he ALWAYS helps clean up the kitchen, and after dinner we sit together in the living room, share a bottle of wine, read, watch "House" reruns - whatever. If I've had a hard day, he's relaxed enough now to give ME a massage. Let me point out also that he has the "big" job and I have a sort of lightweight job - and we planned it this way, so that we can have a more "traditional" balance to our lives.

My point is this - my little bit of sacrifice between 6-8 pm every night results in one EXTREMELY happy husband who spoils me rotten. Believe me, I don't call this a step backwards for women, or abuse by my husband.

It's a great lifestyle, but it takes TWO cooperative people to pull it off. I took a huge paycut and career "setback" so that I could have a job that isn't so demanding, and he knows he has to work hard to make up that difference. But home cooked meals, clothes drying in the sun on the line, a rested wife rather than a frazzled one, great foot massages, and calm evenings at home were worth it to both of us.

I encourage any couple caught in today's hectic lifestyle to consider how they might simplify their lives and try a more traditional approach.

 

[invisible chzbrgr]

Kathryn, no one is saying your marriage or marriages like yours are not happy, not worthy, and unworkable. In fact I think I said so twice in this thread.

The problem is it's the command from the bible that it should be thus and so, when people are so different all over the world; perhaps it makes more sense for the husband in a particular relationship to cede to his wife's wishes and make sure HE has dinner ready for HER when she comes home.

(Not even getting into how a gay couple would handle this, if it were actually a rule of thumb! )

The point is in a good relationship one must find what works, and no one else can say what that looks like for everyone. Not a god, not you, not me.

 

[Beaudreaux]

First of all, I'd take a closer look at Sojourner's information, if I were you. You will discover a small blue circle with an arrow pointing Northeast, clearly indicating that I am male and, therefore, do not have a husband.:flirt:

Oh....well, in that case, go tell your wife to bring you a beer.

The book of Ephesians is a letter to the Church at Ephesus. that much is correct. The rest is abysmally sad. I don't know where you got your "predominant theory," but you need to find better theorists...
"Whereas Paul's authorship of Colossians is seriously doubted, the claim that he wrote Ephesians is almost universally repudiated.

I'm sure that Harris is a good scholar, but he/she is overstating the case. Theories of non-Pauline authorship have been around since the 1930s but did not start to take hold until the 70s. While it is a legitmate theory, it is by no means "almost universally" accepted and is still a source of vital discussion to this day. Here are a few good sources:

• http://graspingthecross.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/who-wrote-the-book-of-ephesians/
• Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Bible.org: The Book of Ephesians

But before we start getting into the "my sources are better than your sources" argument, I'd just like to say "WHO CARES?" I put Paul in my response because I wanted to give you some context. Does it matter whether Paul or a follower of his actually wrote the book? Are the moral dictates in Ephesians not to be followed?

"The insulting estimate of women's innate character found in I timothy is but one reason almost all scholars do not think that Paul wrote it. In Paul's genuine letters, he emphasizes the spiritual equality of all believers: 'There is no such thing as Jew and Greek,...male and female, for you are all one person in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3:28). Besides recognizing women such as Prisca, Euodia, and Sytyche as his co-workeres, the historical Paul also refers to a Roman woman, Junia, as 'eminent among the apostles' (Rom. 16:7).
"Scholars have long believed that [the diatribe in I Cor] forbidding women to speak in church (I Cor. 14:34-35),...was inserted into manuscripts of I Cor. by scribes who wanted to harmonize Paul's authentic writings with the restrictions of women later imposed by the author of I Tim.
"Early believers, eagerly awayting the Parousia, could form a subculture in which the kingdom values prevailed, incorporating the least and 'last' of osociety's member -- including women -- into full community participation (Gol. 3:28). But after belief in an imminent divind kingdom waned and the church accepted an indefinitely delayed Parousia, the Christian community increasingly adapted itself to the larger Greco-Roman world. The adaptation seems to have included almost wholesale acceptance of Roman society's view of male-female relationships, a view that the author of I Tim. uncritically endorses." (ibid.; pp. 324, 325)

Does that explain it for you?

Well, all you have done is argue that Paul didn't write Ephesians and that one of the reasons many liberal scholars believe this is that Paul would never say that about women. OK, so let's say Paul didn't write it and someone else did. Since the Bible is considered to be God's inspired Word, God inspired the author to write the instruction that wives submit to their husbands. Why do you suppose He would do that if that is not really what He wanted? It seems to me that you are saying a couple of things:

1. The Bible contains moral dictates that may be disregarded because they are a result of sociohistorical context that does not exist today.
2. It is almost useless for a lay person to read the Bible and try to learn morality because only scholarly study will show which passages are to be followed and which are to be dismissed.

This bogus thinking has kept women beat down for centuries, and it's high time it STOPPED.

Oh I agree! I think that part of the Bible is totally bogus as well. You do a fine job in justifying why much of the moral instruction in the Bible is to be ignored because of its historical context.