Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord

[Wormwood]

In this post, I would like to discuss the topic of gender roles in the home as it relates to submission and headship. Egalitarianism has been shaping hermeneutics recently and the result has been questioning or entirely ignoring various texts that refer to concepts such as submission, headship and authority. This is especially true as it relates to roles of men and women in the church as well as in the home. My focus on this forum will be to discuss this role in the home.

The simple question to discuss is: Does God desire women to be subject to their husbands in the home?

Egalitarians argue that the Bible does not teach that women should submit to their husbands. Often this concept is classified as sexist, bigoted and cruel. What is their justification for this stance? Egalitarian arguments can be summarized as:

• Gender roles were part of the ancient world, just as slavery was part of the ancient world. The instructions of the NT are about how early believers were to live evangelistically in their context and is not intended to be part of God's design for Christian male and female relationships.
• Submission in the Bible among Christians is mutual. We are to "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Thus, while wives submit to their husbands, husbands should also submit to their wives.
• The word for submission in the Bible can also be understood as identifying with another or and expression of love or service to another. It does not mean rank or authority.
• Because men and women are one in Christ, there are no longer any gender distinctions.

I would argue that all of these views are seriously flawed. The Bible most definitely DOES teach that men occupy a place of headship in the home while the wife is to take a submissive role. I believe the egalitarian argument is based on circular reasoning, especially as it relates to Ephesians 5:21-6:9. Egalitarians begin with a premise and have supplied meanings to words and contexts that are foreign to the context as well as misrepresentative of the actual words used in these texts. I cannot make the case for all these points in such a small space. However, let me briefly address each point and then further discussion in the forum can ensue.

• Gender roles are not simply held up as means by which Christians can evangelize outsiders in their culture. If this is the case, then all forms of submission referenced in the Bible (such as parents and children) can be said to be merely cultural. Also, the commands of submission and headship in the NT are based in unchanging theological truth and not portrayed as acquiescing to cultural norms. If such roles are evil (as egalitarians would claim) then the Bible would hardly teach an "ends justifies the means" type of evangelistic strategy.
• Submission is not mutual. No where in the NT are husbands told to submit to their wives. In fact, such a view is forced to say that Christ's act of sacrifice was ultimately due to his submission to the church. This is seriously flawed. Christ is not in subjection to the church in any fashion. Acts of love and service should not be confused as submission to authority.
• The word in the Bible that is translated "submit" is hupotasso. The word literally means, "to appoint under." The word is pregnant with hierarchical meaning. When referring to persons, it always relates to submission to authority. The word is often used in a military sense in which someone is under the authority and command of another. Egalitarians define this word differently based on a preconceived understanding of Eph. 5 and then use that understanding to redefine the words.
• The Galatians passage about no longer being male or female has nothing to do with gender roles or authority. This text is related to salvation and unity in Christ. We all have equal standing in Christ. Gender roles have nothing to do with equality, but submission and authority. Children do not have lesser value then their parents, yet they are in a role of submission to parents. Christ does not have lesser value than God the Father, but he was in a role of submission to the Father.

Egalitarianism is much more a product of our culture and its expectations than it is a reflection of what the Bible actually teaches. I believe Christians need to go back to the Scriptures and allow them, not culture, to determine what roles should look like in the home.

 

[River Jordan]

I read the passages about gender roles about the same way I read the passages about how to treat one's slaves...as text reflecting the culture at the time it was written.

 

[RANDOR]

Hey River....get over here and cook my dinner

 

[River Jordan]

Sure thing...go ahead and eat it...I dare you.

 

[Wormwood]

River,
Thanks for responding. Obviously I would disagree, but allow me to explain with the following reasons:
First, in these conversations, egalitarians often single out only role distinctions they disapprove of (male/female & slave/master). These issues are never confronted when it comes to government/citizen, parent/child, or Christ/church. I think this clearly reflects the fact that the issue is more of a reflection of the cultural expectations we have than it says anything about the actual teachings themselves and how they should be understood for Christians of all ages.
Second, the basis for these theological concepts regarding male/female relationships are often grounded in God's design in creation. Appeals to Genesis 2 are made in Ephesians 5:32 which indicate the roles in question are grounded in God's original order and has nothing to do with the 1st century context. Moreover, Ephesians 5:22-32 bases its argument on the fact that the male/female role is patterned after the role Christ has with his church. Nothing here suggests that these issues are products of Paul's culture. Everything in these texts suggest that they are grounded in God's design and plan both in creation and restoration.
Third, the Bible indicates that such roles are "fitting for sound doctrine," and "pure." Nothing here suggests that such roles are just products of their times. Rather, Paul holds up these roles as ideals and representative of sound doctrine and honorable living.
Finally, most egalitarians view role distinctions as contrary to God's will and even sinful. It is seen as barbaric and archaic. If this is the case, then clearly the NT would not support such thinking about male/female relationships...regardless of the surrounding culture. In fact, most of the roles discussions given in the NT do counter cultural expectations such as "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..." and instructions for masters to express good will toward their servants because Christ is the master of them both. Those in authority in these days would likely not be so concerned about the loving nurture they should give to those who are under their authority.

One more thing, slavery in the Roman world was much different than American slavery. In fact, the Bible actually approves slavery in a restricted sense. Yet, this from of slavery was much more like an employer/employee relationship than the brutal and demeaning forms of slavery that took place in America with African Americans. Anyway, I have to run...thanks for responding. Ps, I sorry for Randor's comment. Not cool.

 

[RANDOR]

Uh-oh.....got in trouble.....guess I'd better explain....three strans are not easily broken......God, husband, wife.
Now this is how I see it.
If a man (husband) and his woman (wife)....if the man loves Jesus more than his wife and the wife loves the Lord more than her husband...
then both will always treat each other Christ like.
I want my wife to love Jesus more than me....for I will always let her down and vise versa.

Sorry River...I hope ya know I was just a playin..... ........i'm sure ya did...because that was not much of a dinner you prepared.

Some men think they have doninion over thier wives...(scripturaly)..that's a lie from the pit of hell.

I remember 26 years ago my wife saw something on TV that brought this to her mind. It was about jealousy and how this woman did some bad things to her husband for cheating....so my wife responded like this..."If by chance you ever cheated on me, it wouldn't bother me one bit....because i know the fight you would have before you...the lie you listened to and the guilt you would have to battle to get back to where you were with Christ"

Now to me that is healthy thinking........so she wasn't thinking of herself....but of me.
Of course this goes both ways.

Always put God before anything....husband, wife, kids, etc......and he will take care of the husband, wife, kids, etc.
We can always trust Him....

 

[shturt678s]

Uh-oh.....got in trouble.....guess I'd better explain....three strans are not easily broken......God, husband, wife.
Now this is how I see it.
If a man (husband) and his woman (wife)....if the man loves Jesus more than his wife and the wife loves the Lord more than her husband...
then both will always treat each other Christ like.
I want my wife to love Jesus more than me....for I will always let her down and vise versa.

Sorry River...I hope ya know I was just a playin..... ........i'm sure ya did...because that was not much of a dinner you prepared.

Some men think they have doninion over thier wives...(scripturaly)..that's a lie from the pit of hell.

I remember 26 years ago my wife saw something on TV that brought this to her mind. It was about jealousy and how this woman did some bad things to her husband for cheating....so my wife responded like this..."If by chance you ever cheated on me, it wouldn't bother me one bit....because i know the fight you would have before you...the lie you listened to and the guilt you would have to battle to get back to where you were with Christ"

Now to me that is healthy thinking........so she wasn't thinking of herself....but of me.
Of course this goes both ways.

Always put God before anything....husband, wife, kids, etc......and he will take care of the husband, wife, kids, etc.
We can always trust Him....

I knew you would come through in a pinch...owe! Thumbs up!

Old Jack with a fear of our Lord not wanting to offend Him the way I treat my wife...I do need more patience at times Lord.

 

[Shirley]

In a lot of relationships the husband is the head authority, but sometimes the husband refuses to lead and then the wife has no choice but to make it look like he is leading or to encourage him to lead.
Many men think that their leadership role makes them the boss of every decision and therefore he disrespects his wife and children's feelings and opinions. I believe that most men need to feel that they are the boss. Good luck with having a happy family when you are authoritarian without giving consideration to your families needs. I have seen families where the woman is Spiritual, the man is not, the woman leads the children Spiritually and the man legalistically bosses them all around with no regard to their feelings or needs. THE MAN IS THE BOSS!!!!!!!! OBEY EVEN WHEN HE IS TOTALLY WRONG!!!!! tHIS IS WHAT THIS TEACHING CAN CAUSE.
The advice I usually give women who find themselves in this situation is this: Always make him think he is the boss but never really let him control everything to the harm of your family!
A true Spiritual man will lead and his wife and children will gladly and happily follow. If he is just religious and not really Christs, then he will probably abuse them. Been there- in both my family home and my former marriage. Now my husband is so kind and loving and sweet that I have to remind him gently that he is supposed to be the leader.

 

[Enquirer]

The big problem is that most people miss the point entirely when it comes "love your wives" and "submit to your husbands" in marriage.
"Well I'm not going to submit to him because he doesn't .....", and there are a thousand reasons that follow.
"The reason I'm not going to love her is because ....." and there's his thousand reasons.
Both have completely missed it by a mile.

I am married and have been for quite a number of years now, and if I decided to follow this logic then my marriage would
have ended years ago.

The hard fact is that I don't love my wife because she's so fantastic or that my wife submits to me because I'm such a hotshot.
The reason why we do this is because God said so.
I love my wife even when she blows it purely because I'm doing it for Jesus because He is going to hold me accountable one day.
Let's face it, we're all going to mess up somewhere along the line ... and to hold out on each because our partner goes off track
is quite simply put, shooting our self in the foot.

Adam and Eve both tried the blame game in Eden and God still held them accountable for their own individual sin, no one got away
from it.
There are times my wife misses it big time, I then deliberately choose to love her on purpose and do not bring up her faults of yesterday
or whenever and I let it go.
This not only avoids further problems but mentally reminds me of my obedience to Christ and I walk away feeling better for it.
Please don't get me wrong I'm no super saint, I still mess up and allow myself to get involved in arguments but I'm working on it.

The story of "but she/he has got to know about what they did wrong because otherwise how they're going to learn" is really only
because our feelings got hurt and our minds haven't been renewed to the fact that we HAVE TO obey the Word of God whether we like it
or not.

A silly example, I by mistake break a dish and so my wife's face gets all weird and she starts telling me how much she payed for them or how
she's now got to get another set because there's only five instead of six blah blah blah.
A month later she breaks a dish, I don't remind her of what she said to me, I just say, "Oh damn that wasn't good" and actually help her
to clean the mess up.
I'm loving her because that's what God said to do.
I'm no pushover, but if we don't stop the cycle somewhere then it's going to continue until we start pointing out each other's faults all the time.
And that's going to end up in a sour marriage and ultimately the divorce court.

Quite simply put, we need to exercise self control and obey God ... hopefully, eventually they will begin to notice what you're doing, but even
if they don't, you're still covering your bases by obeying God.
Prayer, do you believe in it ?
Start somewhere guys, and just let it go ... don't fall for the bait of satan.

There's a Greek word - skandalizo - imagine a bird trap, you know a box like shape on it's side held up with a stick and a string on the stick
and the bait inside ... when the bird goes for the bait - skandalizo - you pull the string and "gotcha".
That's what the devil does, he sets you up, so now how many times are you going to take the bait ?

We are not unaware of the devil's devices said Paul.

If it comes to violence in the home then that's another story entirely, go to your Pastor and confront the situation, because that never ends well.
Remember obedience is better than sacrifice, and that the willing and obedient will eat the fat of the land.
Just my two cents worth.

 

[Tex]

Gender roles are not culture based. Sure, culture often makes markers for what boys should wear VS what girls should wear, but that's arbitrary. High heels were invented to make men's calves look better, as were pantyhoes. Wigs were for balding men, as was make-up. As time moved on, these were transfered to girls and boys adopted a more "rugged" culture apart from the aristocratic pomposity.

So what would gender roles be apart from culture? The only sign is our genetics. Seriously, Boys have XY and girls have XX. XY should act XY, and XX should act XX. Anything else is a denial of reality.

So, male voices are found more authoritative by both males and females. Females figures capture more attention from both males and females. Testosterone causes territorial and hierarchical aggressiveness (ugh, boys....), while estrogen instead seems to drive emotions based on how those important around act (which explains mothery love, period mood swings specifically at the husband, etc.). These basic facts (and there are many more) on genders can make easy conclusions for roles. Males are naturally dominant. Even when the male is not very dominant, they're still pretty dominant. Over time, they become more dominant, often to the dismay of the wife. Females are built to house the unborn for a while, so they give up abdominals, upper body strength, and the like for larger hips (better for a baby to exit), stronger thighs (yes, average women have stronger legs than average men), and higher tendency for "flight or fight" reactions. The pregnant woman's job is to take care of the unborn, and many times not much else can be done productively. The man, then, takes more repetitive tasks (foraging, hunting) and does better in strict-schedule, high-structure environments (see "army" for more details). This also often makes average men more apt to be politicians or priests (although a very skilled woman may beat out the male competition).

So how does this contribute to today? Well, since we have plenty of men (who are naturally wanting the top, naturally more trusted voice, etc), pastors should be all men. Women often should assist because of the unique perspective and potential to improve the pastor's job. It would be more rare to see a woman who will continue to bear children or continue to go thorugh the menstral cycle at a position where the job toil is literally endless, such as sole royalty of a kingdom (although Queen Elizabeth is a popular case, historical women in charge are extremely rare, and even more rare is a historical woman who is married or has a child while in charge).

Most of these things are natural (many women have a problem with lack of female political or religious leaders, but few would actually join the ranks if social restrictions were removed) and these things don't need much explaining. However, some things (like male voices and female bodies being more attractive to BOTH genders) are more recent psychological evidences to the differences of men and women.

Male and female are not the same, therefore males and females should not be the same. They are equal in value, but one is gold and the other is silver.

 

[aspen]

i am looking for partner, not a slave or a child
i also want a wife who will give her opinion and be willing to compromise - sharinf responsibility and victories. i do not want someone who suppresses her opinion and refuses to take responsibility

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

i am looking for partner, not a slave or a child
i also want a wife who will give her opinion and be willing to compromise - sharinf responsibility and victories. i do not want someone who suppresses her opinion and refuses to take responsibility

I married a feminist! Well, she's toned that down quite a bit since I married her, but her parents are true children of the 60's, as left wing as they can be...and they're rich, white, and Catholic!

So it's an odd coupling we have, almost like that 1990's "Major Dad" sitcom in which a conservative marine officer marries a fire breathing liberal. It may be surprising because when you see my posts, you only see one side of our marriage. The other side usually votes Democrat and holds very different viewpoints.

I believe that fundamental decisions should be made before marriage not after, and when couples hold off on making those decisions after marriage, it tears the marriage apart. These decisions should include kids, how many, etc, work and lifestyles, religion, finances and many other practical matters. When all that is discussed and it's decided that it's a match, then all issues discussed after marriage are trivial by comparison because the big discussions have already been settled.

For instance, when I was dating my wife, she made it clear that she was raised as a naturist and wanted to live in a "clothing optional" home, meaning that nobody is pressured to wear clothes or not wear clothes while at home. I grew up in a conservative home, not a naked house by any means, so this was quite an adjustment to me. Now I think nothing of the fact that our kids in this summer weather hardly ever wear clothes and my smoking hot wife (yes, even after 4 kids) comes out of the shower wearing nothing but a towel on her head.

I tell you this because you said you're looking for somebody. My advice which I hope you take to heart is to get the big issues settled before the wedding bells ring. It makes for much less strife afterward.

 

[Wormwood]

Uh-oh.....got in trouble.....guess I'd better explain....three strans are not easily broken......God, husband, wife.
Now this is how I see it.
If a man (husband) and his woman (wife)....if the man loves Jesus more than his wife and the wife loves the Lord more than her husband...
then both will always treat each other Christ like.
I want my wife to love Jesus more than me....for I will always let her down and vise versa.

Sorry River...I hope ya know I was just a playin..... ........i'm sure ya did...because that was not much of a dinner you prepared.

Some men think they have doninion over thier wives...(scripturaly)..that's a lie from the pit of hell.

I remember 26 years ago my wife saw something on TV that brought this to her mind. It was about jealousy and how this woman did some bad things to her husband for cheating....so my wife responded like this..."If by chance you ever cheated on me, it wouldn't bother me one bit....because i know the fight you would have before you...the lie you listened to and the guilt you would have to battle to get back to where you were with Christ"

Now to me that is healthy thinking........so she wasn't thinking of herself....but of me.
Of course this goes both ways.

Always put God before anything....husband, wife, kids, etc......and he will take care of the husband, wife, kids, etc.
We can always trust Him....

Ha, Randor. I know you were teasing. However, these role discussions can get pretty sensitive. I just think such comments highlight the wrong thinking on both sides of this issue. It is true that love and service to one another is Christ-like and should be the pattern of both husband and wife. However, it is not true that because both love and serve each other that submission becomes mutual and role distinctions between husband and wife are nullified.

In a lot of relationships the husband is the head authority, but sometimes the husband refuses to lead and then the wife has no choice but to make it look like he is leading or to encourage him to lead.
Many men think that their leadership role makes them the boss of every decision and therefore he disrespects his wife and children's feelings and opinions. I believe that most men need to feel that they are the boss. Good luck with having a happy family when you are authoritarian without giving consideration to your families needs. I have seen families where the woman is Spiritual, the man is not, the woman leads the children Spiritually and the man legalistically bosses them all around with no regard to their feelings or needs. THE MAN IS THE BOSS!!!!!!!! OBEY EVEN WHEN HE IS TOTALLY WRONG!!!!! tHIS IS WHAT THIS TEACHING CAN CAUSE.
The advice I usually give women who find themselves in this situation is this: Always make him think he is the boss but never really let him control everything to the harm of your family!
A true Spiritual man will lead and his wife and children will gladly and happily follow. If he is just religious and not really Christs, then he will probably abuse them. Been there- in both my family home and my former marriage. Now my husband is so kind and loving and sweet that I have to remind him gently that he is supposed to be the leader.

True Shirley. Just because the role of authority exists in the home does not mean that authorities should be followed blindly. While wives should submit to their husbands "as to the Lord," this does not mean that they do so without thinking or in ways that would violate a command from God. However, I would be careful with the idea that we make the husband "think he is the boss." This sounds somewhat manipulative. He is the authority of the home because God has declared it to be such. There is no illusion here. However, if he is using that authority in a godless way, then the wife should always be obedient to Christ above her husband. Yet, the way to impact the husband is not to usurp his authority through manipulation but to truly show a spirit of submission. See 1 Peter 3:1-2.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Ha, Randor. I know you were teasing. However, these role discussions can get pretty sensitive. I just think such comments highlight the wrong thinking on both sides of this issue. It is true that love and service to one another is Christ-like and should be the pattern of both husband and wife. However, it is not true that because both love and serve each other that submission becomes mutual and role distinctions between husband and wife are nullified.

But there's a divergence between what's ideal and practical reality. Usually dominance in marriage. or let's just say the one that has more clout, has more to do with personality traits than genders. Men are supposed to lead, but often do not. Many women choose to marry weak men so they can dominate the marriage, but then get upset when their limp husbands don't defend them against their domineering mother in laws. So many dynamics come into play. And we have a culture of feminism that chaffs against male rule and teaches men to be truckle. This is certainly reinforced in TV entertainment sitcoms where the husband is an incompetent dolt and the wife makes all the decisions. Matriarchy is what boys are taught, and that's the kind of men they become.

 

[Wormwood]

But there's a divergence between what's ideal and practical reality. Usually dominance in marriage. or let's just say the one that has more clout, has more to do with personality traits than genders. Men are supposed to lead, but often do not. Many women choose to marry weak men so they can dominate the marriage, but then get upset when their limp husbands don't defend them against their domineering mother in laws. So many dynamics come into play. And we have a culture of feminism that chaffs against male rule and teaches men to be truckle. This is certainly reinforced in TV entertainment sitcoms where the husband is an incompetent dolt and the wife makes all the decisions. Matriarchy is what boys are taught, and that's the kind of men they become.

I agree that there are many reasons why God's design for the marriage relationship often does not manifest itself properly. However, I think the answer is to learn the Scriptures and seek to respond accordingly. The role of the husband, while in a position of authority, does not always mandate that they exert "dominance." Paul's example for the husband is to follow the pattern of Christ and the church. While Jesus clearly is the authority and the church submits to him, he did not use that power to dominate, but to serve, bless and protect.

In any event, I think it is significant that Paul does not encourage husbands to make their wives submit, nor wives to make their husbands lead and love. Rather, the focus is on the wife to focus on the wife and the husband to focus on the husband. We cannot control our partner, but we can respond to God's instruction ourselves.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

Yeah, it's not a surprise that we disagree on this. For me, I appreciate the fact that society and culture were very different than today and I expect the writings from those times to reflect that. Keep in mind that marriage was also extremely different, and was mostly a financial arrangement worked out by the patriarchs. Marriage for love where the woman had much of a say in the deal was unheard of. I mean, in the OT women are explicitly described as being spoils of war (virgin women anyways). Also, it's not surprising to see a book written exclusively by men say "women have to submit to us". Huh...go figure.

In my experience from watching my parents, my relatives, and being in relationships myself, the ones where both the man and the woman see each other as equal partners tend to work the best. Sure they each have their own roles (many of which overlap), but decisions are made jointly and everyone chips in. My dad always told us, "A family is like a team. If we all do our parts and help each other, everything will be a lot easier". That included him doing laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc. when mom worked. I think that's a lot more sensible than one party declaring "I'm the boss".

Are you aware of the Quiverfull Movement, where "wives submit to your husbands" is strictly enforced? Kinda creepy IMO.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I don't see the abuse of marriage historically as an excuse to forgo the Biblical model, nor do I believe that the concepts on marriage taught in the Bible are not universal, just as applicable today as it was back then.

It doesn't surprise me that you're a feminist, RJ. Like I told Aspen, I married one. But feminism in marriage simply does not work because it promotes the belief that equality in marriage is not achieved until there's an equality in roles, both roles doing the exact same thing. The model that feminism has for society as that there is no gender roles, that women should be able to pursue a career as well as having children. This of course neglects the children as they are institutionalized in daycare, put into the hands of somebody who could never love them and spend time with them like a real parent would. Feminism teaches women that they are somehow less and somehow subjugated if they stay home and raise the kids, which is why it doesn't surprise me that you made reference to Mom working.

My family is a single income family. I drive a truck and earn about $40k and we make do with that small amount of income and manage to raise 4 beautiful children. My in laws, liberals that they are, have repeatedly made comments about how their daughter isn't living up to her potential as a woman, so much so that my wife has dug in her heals and pushed them back hard. Now they keep their bigoted comments to themselves. For us it isn't a matter of submission like it is for feminism, it's a matter of what's the best way to raise a family. She listens to Dr. Laura and so do I, one of the few female media personalities taking a strong stand against the deceptions of the feminist movement.

When any major controversy emerges, I do usually have the final decision, the last one having to do with the Catholic school our children attend. But if my final decision does not take into consideration her concerns and point of view, then I'm not being a good Christian husband. And so in fact her concerns are reflected in the final outcome and I can't think of any instance in which either of us has completely gotten their way. That's how a loving couple works it out. To say that nobody has the final say is anarchy because ultimately somebody must.

What I see in feminism and more largely in the worldly view of marriage is a "what's in it for me" attitude that ultimately destroys marriages. Instead of loving and giving oneself fully to the other, one begins to contemplate how they're being cheated and marriages almost always end in both parties entirely focused on what the other one did to ruin the marriage, a focus that's completely self serving instead of spouse serving. This is what happens when Biblical guidance on marriage is NOT applied.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't see the abuse of marriage historically as an excuse to forgo the Biblical model, nor do I believe that the concepts on marriage taught in the Bible are not universal, just as applicable today as it was back then.

What exactly is the "Biblical model" of marriage? If a husband dies before any children are born, does the wife still have to marry his brother? Is the man allowed to have multiple wives, as long as none of them are sisters (Lev. 18:18)? Should we go through all the drama over whether the woman is a virgin as described in Deut. 22?

It doesn't surprise me that you're a feminist, RJ. Like I told Aspen, I married one. But feminism in marriage simply does not work...

Do you see the problem with what you just wrote?

because it promotes the belief that equality in marriage is not achieved until there's an equality in roles, both roles doing the exact same thing. The model that feminism has for society as that there is no gender roles, that women should be able to pursue a career as well as having children. This of course neglects the children as they are institutionalized in daycare, put into the hands of somebody who could never love them and spend time with them like a real parent would. Feminism teaches women that they are somehow less and somehow subjugated if they stay home and raise the kids, which is why it doesn't surprise me that you made reference to Mom working.

Like any other thing, there are varying degrees of feminism. Personally, I'm not of the "everything has to be equal and there can be no different roles" model. And btw, your assumptions about my family are wrong. My mom and dad both worked, but we were never raised in any sort of daycare. One of my parents was always around.

My family is a single income family. I drive a truck and earn about $40k and we make do with that small amount of income and manage to raise 4 beautiful children. My in laws, liberals that they are, have repeatedly made comments about how their daughter isn't living up to her potential as a woman, so much so that my wife has dug in her heals and pushed them back hard. Now they keep their bigoted comments to themselves. For us it isn't a matter of submission like it is for feminism, it's a matter of what's the best way to raise a family. She listens to Dr. Laura and so do I, one of the few female media personalities taking a strong stand against the deceptions of the feminist movement.

Since we're all different, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we have different ways of managing our relationships. If it works for you guys, then I'm happy for you.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

What exactly is the "Biblical model" of marriage? If a husband dies before any children are born, does the wife still have to marry his brother? Is the man allowed to have multiple wives, as long as none of them are sisters (Lev. 18:18)? Should we go through all the drama over whether the woman is a virgin as described in Deut. 22?


Do you see the problem with what you just wrote?

Why are you going back to the Old Testament? We're in a discussion about marriage conduct as prescribed to the early Christian Church who suffered no delusions that they were subject to the Levitical law. If you can't stay with the discussion, perhaps you can start another thread on legalism.

And my wife started out feminist because that's how she was raised, but then found out that practically it just doesn't work in a marriage. Feminism preaches equality, but behind the Oz curtain is hatred for men, and she doesn't hate men and doesn't want to treat me like her mother treats her father. Now she rejects feminism altogether.

And if you and your siblings weren't abandoned in daycare then that's fine. It's certainly not how things are done today where it's routine to neglect children by putting them into the hands of strangers everyday.

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

Yeah, it's not a surprise that we disagree on this. For me, I appreciate the fact that society and culture were very different than today and I expect the writings from those times to reflect that. Keep in mind that marriage was also extremely different, and was mostly a financial arrangement worked out by the patriarchs. Marriage for love where the woman had much of a say in the deal was unheard of. I mean, in the OT women are explicitly described as being spoils of war (virgin women anyways). Also, it's not surprising to see a book written exclusively by men say "women have to submit to us". Huh...go figure.

In my experience from watching my parents, my relatives, and being in relationships myself, the ones where both the man and the woman see each other as equal partners tend to work the best. Sure they each have their own roles (many of which overlap), but decisions are made jointly and everyone chips in. My dad always told us, "A family is like a team. If we all do our parts and help each other, everything will be a lot easier". That included him doing laundry, cooking, cleaning, etc. when mom worked. I think that's a lot more sensible than one party declaring "I'm the boss".

Are you aware of the Quiverfull Movement, where "wives submit to your husbands" is strictly enforced? Kinda creepy IMO.

Thanks for responding. I think there is a difference between a narrative that describes a cultural event (many narratives in the Bible describe sinful behaviors... and do not always make moral reflections on them in the narrative) and explicit teaching and biblical commands. I think the idea that the Bible is "a book written exclusively by men" and therefore reflects the desire of men rather than God undermines the very notion of inspiration. Either God directed the writing of the Scriptures and so they reflect his desire (making them authoritative), or it is the product of men and their own personal agendas and desires. Obviously if the Bible is the latter, than no one should pay attention to it and so even discussing the matter is pointless. However, Christians throughout the ages have believed the former. In fact, I think it is an underlying principle that distinguishing Christian believers and non-Christian unbelievers.

Again, authority and submission do not rule out the role of a "team." In fact, I think it enhances it. Most teams have captains or leaders. Children are part of the "team" but that does not mean they decide how the family finances are spent or where they should eat for dinner (mmmm...cotton candy for dinner!). No one is saying that everyone should not have a voice in the family. However, it is saying that everyone has a unique role. We should not allow abuses to authority determine that authority in the home is bad. There are bad police officers who abuse their authority, but that does not make the role of a police officer a bad thing. Jesus is Lord over the church, but that authority is not used to demean or belittle. Husbands are called to follow his model of leadership and authority in the home.

I am familiar with the Quiverfull Movement (somewhat). I agree that this movement appears to be disturbing.