So about a year ago my daughter told me the church her and my son-in-law go to teaches when it comes to family...
1. The husband comes first. What he says is law and should not be contested.
2. The wife comes second and should obey her husband.
3. Children come third
I said BS! You are equal to your husband and the children should come first. They didn't ask to be here, they look for guidance, for whats right and they learn by what they see/hear.
To anyone here, does your church teach children come third?
If so, why?
PS: I have no clue what church they go to .
I have been to those that did and those that didn't. As a single person this was not of central importance to me, so I didn't follow the argument closely, but a lot of this about women obeying husbands occurs simply because of the placement of a chapter number, which was added by others after the original letter was written. The chapter numbers are *not* part of scripture and should be ignored but often are not and often shape how we interpret scripture. Here is a classic example which pertains to the subject you have posted about:
[1Co 10:32-33 NIV] 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God-- 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
[1Co 11:1-16 NIV] 1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. 2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.
Notice how the chapter change is like a giant hand that stops you from reading and suggests a break in the text which is not there? Some versions also add headings where the writers want to impose a break that is not there. For example the NIV inserts 'On Head Coverings in Worship' after 11:1, but this is not part of the letter though the NIV makes it appear so. It adds to and alters the scripture with its editorial choice. In a church that consciously accepts 'Tradition' that is not an issue, but in a church that claims to to be bible led wholly it can become a source of confusion and argument.
When does Paul stop talking about being an example and start talking about who is the head, and when does he stop talking about who is the head and start talking about cloth coverings for the head, and does he conclude that men and women are equal since each comes from the other? Well...if you let the chapter headings and inserted heading lead you then you get a different answer, but if you stick to reading Paul straight through with his terrible habit of run-on sentences and topics that intermingle you may get a different point of view.
In the end if he says something you cannot support from more ancient scripture you just have to table it, because he is a very bad writer.
