Christian Wives and Obediance

[blackout]

I think what I was getting at in my post before,
is that christianity is ALL ABOUT obedience.
Obedience to all kinds of rules and 'orders'.
The WHOLE THING is a lifestyle of obedience,
to the church, to god, to parents, to husband, to wife
and OFTEN in " higher-arch-I-call " "order".

So the example of wife obedient to husband...
is just one more of many such 'rules'.
Christianity is a lifestyle of obedience and rules
that... I guess if those particular rules tend to "suit you"...
and do NOT stifle your own personal style much...
it's easy to say they're good.

But for those of us whose unique personhood
is COMPLETELY STIFFLED by all these christian rules...
the whole thing is COMPLETELY UNHEALTHY.

Not even the threat of hell will ever change who I am.
Hell on earth OR Hell ... well... wherever.

 

[sojourner]

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.co...-of-ephesians/
• Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Bible.org: The Book of Ephesians

First of all, I'm sure that Wiki is not as reliable a source as Harris. Second, Bible.org is obviously a conservative website that espouses scholarship with a conservative agenda. Therefore, it is not, IMO, reliable. You're going to have to do better than that, if you're going to convince me that Harris' statement is "overstated."

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?

It's important to know the sources, so that we have a better idea of why something is there, to begin with. I'd say that, if it's true that the statement is a later interpolation by an author who wishes to bring the practices of the church into line with traditional Greco-Roman values, then we don't particularly have to follow that bit of advice. Especially since we are not living in a Greco-Roman culture.

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?

Why do you suppose that God inspired the writer to write that clothing made out of mixed cloth is an abomination? Yet I'd be willing to bet that most of the scholars presented in Bible.org are wearing 60/40 shirts... It just doesn't make sense in our time and place.

The Bible contains moral dictates that may be disregarded because they are a result of sociohistorical context that does not exist today.

Bingo!

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.

bingo again! Why do you think that most responsible Christian bodies discourage "individual" biblical interpretation? Why do you think that clergy are required to take Bible courses in accredited seminaries? Why do you think they are charged to teach sound doctrine to their congregations?

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.

"ignored" is a strong (and, I feel, incorrect) word to use here. We don't ignore the moral teaching. But we do recognize it for what it is, take it in context, find it's meaning and attempt to follow the spirit and not the letter. Why? Because the overarching theme of the Bible is love. These edicts were to help people of a certain time and place be more loving. They do not help us to do that. But we can look at them and understand that God wants our relationships to be ordered according to practices that are beneficial for us, and not destructive.

 

[sojourner]

Sure it does. It is clear that a wife must sumit to her husbands will. It doesn't say "if he's a nice guy".

I side with Sojourner and many others who reject these portions of the Bible as unchristian.

Hold on, Cochise! I never said that I reject any scripture. I weigh scripture and make a decision as to which has the greater priority. But I don't reject any of it.

 

[DallasApple]

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.

Again..I do not see this as submission.Its routine lifestyle choices.And give and take.What you're doing is it sounds like what you WANT to do and like to do for your relationship and you took a "role" that you feel comfortable and content and happy in.

Looking attractive for your spouse again I dont see as "submitting" to him.Most women care if their husbands think they are pretty and sexy.If you dont care what he thinks you look like(ever) then something has gone awry.

What you are describing here is mutal respect..mutual acts of kindess..and balanced responsiblities.You happened to take the role that has been more "traditional" for women in the past.

If your going to call everything you mentioned "submitting" to your husband ..then we could call anything we ever did for each other submitting to the others will.Or every responsibility that was ours in the relationship and running of the household submitting to our spouse.

My husband goes to work.I stay home.While he's at work if I scrub the bathtubs and vacuum and cook dinner am I submitting to him because he likes a clean bathtub rather than a filthy one(and so do I) and someone has to cook dinner(I eat too) and Im the one here to do it?Am I submitting to him simply because I chose to take the more traditional role with the responibilties commonly associated as "woman's work"?

Why is giving your husband a foot massage an act of submission rather than an act of love?When he gives you a back massage is he loving you or submitting to you?And why is one different than the other?

Again if your examples are acts of Biblical submission / a wife submitting to her husband in all things..Then every single thing we ever do to please our spouse..and every responsibilty we assign to ourselves could be deemed a submissive act.For both the man and the woman though.What you described can not be distinquished apart from acts of love and respect or plain ole life responsibilities and duties that one or the other have to do anyway.Things you would have to do even if you were single.i.e cook..work..clean.And hanging out drinking wine watching t.v?I would call that enjoying each others company.Not a wife submitting to her husband.

Love

Dallas

 

[sojourner]

People who believe this are not "using" the Bible. They're reading it and taking its moral dictates to heart. The Bible is quite clear that wives are to submit to the will of their husbands. No one is twisting that passage in some odd way, but merely reading it as it is written.

I think such a rule is repugnant, but then I am comfortable rejecting parts of the Bible that I believe are wrong. It is not fair, though, to characterize people who follow the Bible as "using" it in some way. They're just doing what they're told.

It's just not black-and-white like that. What is the Bible really saying there? If the author were living in our time and place, what would he have said here? What you're saying is like that old Twilight Zone episode with the book, "to Serve Man." "It's a cookbook!"

Valid interpretation always includes testing the concepts by modern standards. Wives submitting just doesn't work in this culture, if for no other reason than we are not an honor/shame culture.
I think people do "use" and "abuse" the Bible to their own ends. At best, they misinterpret the Bible and end up harming people.

 

[sojourner]

I think what I was getting at in my post before,
is that christianity is ALL ABOUT obedience.
Obedience to all kinds of rules and 'orders'.
The WHOLE THING is a lifestyle of obedience,
to the church, to god, to parents, to husband, to wife
and OFTEN in " higher-arch-I-call " "order".

So the example of wife obedient to husband...
is just one more of many such 'rules'.
Christianity is a lifestyle of obedience and rules
that... I guess if those particular rules tend to "suit you"...
and do NOT stifle your own personal style much...
it's easy to say they're good.

But for those of us whose unique personhood
is COMPLETELY STIFFLED by all these christian rules...
the whole thing is COMPLETELY UNHEALTHY.

Not even the threat of hell will ever change who I am.
Hell on earth OR Hell ... well... wherever.

xy was not intended to be legalistic. It became so when it was imperialized. It has become more so since it became more and more imbedded in the culture. Xy was meant, in part, to liberate us from things that stifle abundant life.

 

[DallasApple]

You know what - I can't help but think that there's a lot of subconscious MAN BASHING going on here. Where's your confidence in men? Do you even believe there are men out there who have the capability to love a woman like Christ loves His church - willing to sacrifice ANYTHING for her wellbeing, cherishing her with an undying love, honoring her with all his gifts and treating her tenderly?

It sure doesn't sound like it.

Unmarried women out there - may I suggest that if you're looking for a mate, you look for one like that? They ARE out there - and if you're lucky enough to find one of those jewels, you may not find the concept of "submission" so bad after all. You'll find that you're submitting yourself to being treated with respect.

How is it man bashing to discuss these scriptures as pretty obviously oppressive in nature towards women?And in the hands of a controlling man could in fact lead to her being abused in a multitude of ways?

Even if it doesnt lead to that.Its at face value insulting towards women that in EVERY marriage the man is more qualified to lead in all ways including spiritually.

We have barely touched on the scripture instructing men to live in "understanding" of their wife..which sounds GREAT if you just took that one line.But it goes on to say why..and it is because she is the weaker of the two.And I dont think It was meant to be a compliment towards the woman.And its put as a matter of fact regarding ALL women.Even if it said because she is 'differrent" than the man not neccesarrily in negative ways(I believe Jesus knew this well) I wouldnt take that as an insult because I believe that to be true for the most part.

Anyway I dont equate defense of women to "man bashing".If so..there are quite a few men here that are bashing there own gender.And women here possibly bashing their own sons and fathers and brothers and husbands.

Love

Dallas

 

[Beaudreaux]

I may have known more pathologically religious people than you have. Some of them really take the submission thing to an absurd extreme -- an extreme not justified by the text.

But the act of submission is binary. Either you submit or you don't. You cannot "extremely" submit anymore than you can "extremely" not submit. The Bible is also clear that wives must submit in all situations:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

People who say that this passage does not mean a wife is instructed to stay with an abusive husband are wrong. If you're a Christian woman and you are married, the Bible expects you to submit to your husband in everything. If he abuses you and tells you not to leave him, the Bible expects you to obey him and stay.

Again, I think such instruction is repugnant, but you cannot deny that it is there. If you don't believe such instruction is correct, then man up and reject that part of the Bible. Don't try to say "Well, the BIble certainly doesn't mean you should stay with an abusive husband." It most certainly does.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Hold on, Cochise! I never said that I reject any scripture. I weigh scripture and make a decision as to which has the greater priority. But I don't reject any of it.

Remember this?

Quote:
[Beaudreaux]The Bible contains moral dictates that may be disregarded because they are a result of sociohistorical context that does not exist today.
[Sojourner] Bingo!

So, maybe "reject" is too strong a word. I will go with your original phrasing "disregard". Much of the moral instruction in the Bible should be disregarded because of its sociohistorical context.

 

[DallasApple]

Where's your confidence in men? Do you even believe there are men out there who have the capability to love a woman like Christ loves His church - willing to sacrifice ANYTHING for her wellbeing, cherishing her with an undying love, honoring her with all his gifts and treating her tenderly?

Yes..but not to perfection as Jesus.But yes..good men are out there everywhere.In those cases though..as Heather mentioned..a woman would not need to be ordered to submit to him "in all things"...She would not need to be instructed that he had "authority" over her and was her head. She would not need to be commanded to respect him.He would not need the command to "love her"(wouldnt you think thats why he married her in the first place).

Love

Dallas

 

[Smoke]

But the act of submission is binary. Either you submit or you don't. You cannot "extremely" submit anymore than you can "extremely" not submit. The Bible is also clear that wives must submit in all situations:

People who say that this passage does not mean a wife is instructed to stay with an abusive husband are wrong. If you're a Christian woman and you are married, the Bible expects you to submit to your husband in everything. If he abuses you and tells you not to leave him, the Bible expects you to obey him and stay.

Again, I think such instruction is repugnant, but you cannot deny that it is there. If you don't believe such instruction is correct, then man up and reject that part of the Bible. Don't try to say "Well, the BIble certainly doesn't mean you should stay with an abusive husband." It most certainly does.

Okay, you're right. Maybe what I should have said is that no reasonable person would follow the Bible in a literal manner.

 

[DallasApple]

If you're a Christian woman and you are married, the Bible expects you to submit to your husband in everything. If he abuses you and tells you not to leave him, the Bible expects you to obey him and stay.

But it appears the Bible does recognize that she may seperate from her husband.

It tells her not to depart from her husband..BUT even if she she DOES..let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband.

Its not telling her she should do it..but then it goes on to tell her what to do if she does.And one of her options is to remain "unmarried".It doesnt order her back to the husband as her only option.Some interpretations are that this is referring to a wife getting a seperation..not a divorce.IOW..she is techinically still married to the man.But not living with him.

Love

Dallas

 

[Falvlun]

The Bible is not commanding that the wife have dinner on the table by 6. The bible is saying that SOMEONE HAS TO BE IN CHARGE.

Ok. Then why can't the woman be in charge?

Or, rather, why wouldn't the person more knowledgable about a specific subject take the lead in that subject?

Or, even better, why couldn't people in a partnership sit down together and discuss the course of action and come to a joint conclusion?

I still don't think my basic question has been answered:
What is the purpose of having a woman submit to her husband in all things?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Okay, you're right. Maybe what I should have said is that no reasonable person would follow the Bible in a literal manner.

Amen, brother!

 

[DallasApple]

Ok. Then why can't the woman be in charge?

Or, rather, why wouldn't the person more knowledgable about a specific subject take the lead in that subject?

In fact the example of dinner? I was "in charge' of that from the beginning.I "took the role" my husband didnt "assign" it to me.I am good at it.Plus my mother had that role so I learned from her.We enjoy cooking.So does one of my younger sisters.My other sister would rather order out..LOL!!!..Once they could afford it?..Thats exactly what they did almost every night of the week.

If my husband had said "Im cooking you go sit down" Every night I would not have "submitted".I would have said no..thats my deal..get out of my kitchen.In fact..I have thrown him out of the kitchen on more than one occasion when he tried to butt in and was getting in my way.

He always asked though can I "help you with anything".

And actually I'll confess..I became upset when he did only view my "passion" for cooking as just a daily burden that needed to be done.Because I put a lot of love in my creations.And I got better over time.He didnt view it as an act of submission to him either.Or "womans work".He is perfectly capable of cooking..so is his dad and his brother.When I got tired of cooking my husband took over.He also does all the laundry.Not because I didnt..or wont.Because he says it "relaxes him". .If Im mad at him?..I make sure there are no clothes to wash! LOL!!(then he starts washing throw rugs and bedding even if they dotn need it)...

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

What is the purpose of having a woman submit to her husband in all things?

To boost the man ego and make him believe he is superior to a woman.And to keep the women down so they wouldnt get any ideas in their pretty little heads they could be in authority over a man at any time for any reason.Same as at the church.(I suffer woman not to teach)

Love

Dallas

 

[Beaudreaux]

To boost the man ego and make him believe he is superior to a woman.And to keep the women down so they wouldnt get any ideas in their pretty little heads they could be in authority over a man at any time for any reason.Same as at the church.(I suffer woman not to teach)

You go girl! TEACH it!

I'm with you. That is definitely one of the parts of the Bible that is a load of crap.

 

[DallasApple]

What is the purpose of having a woman submit to her husband in all things?

I will say..I think they honestly believed women were not as capable intellectually..or spiritually..and that they were "weak" emotionally.That they "needed" a man to ensure their well being and to protect women from their own selves.That they were "helpless".

And they probably were in many ways..(helpless)..because they were oppressed and society was set up that a woman did in fact need a man to survive.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

You go girl! TEACH it!

I'm with you. That is definitely one of the parts of the Bible that is a load of crap.

LOL!! thanks..

And sadly I think this "mind frame" is rooted deeply somehow even in modern times.

Think about the descrimination women have endured in the work force even after they were supposedly "equal".Yeah..they were "equal" only if they had the balls to slap their employees on the butt and make sexual comments to them.(wink wink)..

You sound like a "reasonable" feminist.(not an extremist type)..You might enjoy the book the "Mommy Myth".It really funny..full of satire..but many many facts on the original causes for feminism..And how women have been fed much "propoganda" to go home and raise the kiddos.Using scare tactics..guilt trips..and glamorization of motherhood through the media.

It goes through WW2 as well..When women were called to the workforce to take the jobs that the men occupied while they were off serving..And the support of the government these women got with their children in order to take these jobs in order to be "patriotic"..things such as government subsidized daycare..with on staff nurses...balanced(hot meals) meals prepared for women to purchase for dinner at reasonable rates at the DAYCARE center when they came to collect the children..

Once the war was over..ALL support withdrawn..women were told thanks..Now go home back to your real job.

Love

Dallas

 

[Elessar]

People who say that this passage does not mean a wife is instructed to stay with an abusive husband are wrong. If you're a Christian woman and you are married, the Bible expects you to submit to your husband in everything. If he abuses you and tells you not to leave him, the Bible expects you to obey him and stay.

And who, exactly, gave a Pastafarian the authority to interpret Christian scripture?