See CT4, This is just another example of our bomb-diggity Moderators!!! :) Thank you!
SC

Thanks CT4 for digging this up. I don't think I've seen this thread before myself.

But SummerChild, I did want to answer your question from the other thread, so ere is the Cliffnote version :D since much of the detail is already presented here.

The wife should "submit" unto the husband. Is that a bad thing? No, because God commands the husband to love and treat his wife just as Christ loves and treats the church (us).

If the husband has the "heart of Christ" he would do NOTHING intentionlly to his wife that would cause her harm, pain, heartache, or strife (just as Christ does nothing to INTENTIONALLY bring us harm or to see us hurt). The husband would love his wife unconditionally (just as Christ loves us unconditionally).

This is why God stresses that we (husband and wife) should be "equally yoked".

I hope this helps...

Just to weigh in.. most people don't like to submit but in life we submit all the time be it on your job, the law, to your children. It seems like when it is a significant other it becomes a problem. A key aspect of submission is faith. I believe most people lack faith which is why most have a problem with submission(be it a man or woman)

Too many chiefs and no Indians...
 

I didnt read the entire thread,..but I'm in the posting mood tonight so here's my 6 cents ;)

Yes i do think wives should submit to the husbands...HOWEVER i believe this only applies in a Christian marriage....I mean if the husband doesn't believe in the Bible...but knows the scripture about submission backward and forward...I'd have a problem with that...but then again...I wouldn't be marrying him anyway...

It actually bugs me when so-called independent women who may or may not make more $$ than there husbands try to run the household and make all the decisions.....gotta let a man be a man.... (but we all know who really running the show :p )

Interesting thread.

I am Jewish, as is my husband. There's nothing in the Jewish wedding ceremony that makes a wife promise to obey her husband. (And anyone who knows a Jewish woman knows we don't obey our husbands! :D )

I believe that two people who choose to become a family unit should be equal in all things and should share the responsibilities of "head of household" equally. Marriage is about partnership, not who's submitting to whom.

A marriage consists of a master, a mistress, and two slaves... making, in all, two. ;)

Thanks for the reply HK and I've seen this reasoning before.

Here's the reason that it doesn't make sense to me: EVEN IF your husband is going to treat you like fine wine (or presumably better according to this verse) why does that it make it reasonable that you should want to SUBMIT to him?

For instance, you and I are both equals, yet, even if you treated me perfectly, I would still not want to submit to you. Just b/c it is submission. It implies inferiority to me. That's the problem that I have with the submission issue. I just don't think that I'm inferior to a man.

SC

I hear what you are saying RBL and I would pose this question: so why not have the person who knows the most on any particular issue (whether it is the man OR the woman) do the submitting? It's peculiar to me that submission w/in a marriage only goes one way. What would be so wrong with the man submitting to the woman sometimes. Sometimes we know best and sometimes the man knows best.

Re: Too many chiefs and no Indians...
 

See LoveSpell, this is what I don't understand. What does appearing to "run the household" have to do with a man being a man? In my mind, being a man includes the qualities of humility and wisdom. If my man is wise and he recognizes that I should be running the show on matter x and he is humble enough to admit this to himself and me, then he is a man. To me, a man is not one who must be made to *feel* as if he is in charge if/when he really is not. It's my opinion, that a man is not one to put his ego into play like that.

SC

Aephi Alum, this is pretty much my point of view as well. Marriage is about partnership, not submission.

I know that there will be those who say that not both parties can be equal all the time. This is exactly my point from my other thread: if you are more wise or learned or feel especially stronger about something than your partner than I would say that you are the dominant figure for *that* transaction or issue. Thus, no you are not *always* equal in every certain thing but, in my opinion, that equality would change based on the facts in place, not based on who happens to be the man.

SC

Re: Re: Too many chiefs and no Indians...
 

I just believe the man is supposed to be the head of the household....and actually...I'm not going to fight to over take that responsibility. Its not an easy job... I will give my opinion...and he will take that into account....but in the end its his decision...if its right its right if its wrong its wrong..... but if he makes a decision I dont agree with...I think its my duty to support him and help him see things from a different perspective...not say oh i can do it better. I just think its out of order for a woman to be running the show.... The wife has enough responsibilities....Its more important to me to make sure my family has dinners together every night and prays together....than to try to be in control all the time..

But again...I am a bit traditional....and I really do not expect anyone on this board to agree with me....I am a traditional thinker amongst a lot of so called "independent" women....so I know my thoughts are a bit "out there" to some...

Why does the issue of who is in "control" on a particular issue matter?? Of course marriage is a partnership...but MANY times two partners disagree and someone has to make the final decision....IMO it should be the man... I just think too many woman want to wear the pants in the home....and i dont think a strong brotha is going to stick around forever for that...

A difference in my perspective is that I've seen this work in many households...my mother in no way is a weak woman....and is very opinionated....but when its time to make the final decision...she speaks her peace and lets my Dad handle it..she never says I TOLD YOU SO if he makes the wrong decision...she's supportive..but again...submitting works in the context of a Christian marriage...when the man is submitting himself to God...not when he's just trying to have his way and be in control.... I believe the best men have great women by their side...not struggling to get his position....

Re: Re: Re: Too many chiefs and no Indians...
 

Thanks for the feedback Love_Spell,
I guess that I am just not terribly traditional at all b/c, for instance (referring to your response), I don't necessarily see it as the woman's role to get food on the table each night and focus on things such as prayer. If my husband is a better cook, he is more than welcome to that position and I would not be offended.

For me, it's about achieving the best end. If my husband knows diddly squat about something but he is making the final decision just b/c he is the man, to me, that's not wise. I know that in financial matters, for instance, I would gladly just tell my husband to run with things b/c I'm not terribly knowledgeable in this area (am trying to get better). I would assume that he would want to relinquish the same to me.

Thanks for the convo,
SC


SC

Hmmm, maybe we both have different opinions as to what "submission" is. Submission(in the biblical sense) has nothing to do with inferiority.

The husband (speaking of a man after Christ's heart) would already know humilty and the benefit of compromise. These are attributes that are already apart of who he is. He would already know to talk over and discuss issues with his wife.

I just don't buy into secular society's view of women "having and doing it all". So that could be another reason why I have no problem with it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Too many chiefs and no Indians...
 

I dont believe I said it is the woman's role to get the food on the table...and to pray...I said that is what I would be more concerned with instead of trying to run the house....and any man I married hopefully would be equally as concerned...but I wouldn't have the other responsibilites tha he had....I think you're taking issue with things that I am not saying....of course if a man has never balanced a checkbook in his life...he's not going to be the one doing it when he gets married....what I am saying is that the man should have the final say when decisions need to be made and there is disagreement...Like someone said...the man is the head...and the woman is the neck...it indeed is a partnership..but someone will have to give in at some point....and if the woman is leading in certain areas...it should be a result of mutual agreement that that is the way it should be done....not because SHE decided it was the best way...

well said...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Too many chiefs and no Indians...
 

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say :D, couldn't articulate :( .

*lol*

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Too many chiefs and no Indians...
 

Love_spell, I totatlly agree with the above. Additionally, I would insert the word "man" in place of "woman" and "HE" in place of "SHE" as well. My opinion is that the decision of who is leading on any particular issue should be a joint decision made by both parties. Some would say that it is only when the *woman* wants to make the final decision or lead that the man and woman should come to an agreement to allow her to do so. What I am saying is that for me, I would want us to come to that same agreement when the man is leading as well. For me, what good for the goose is also good for the gander.

I see that we have different points of view but it's really ok b/c it's not my goal to try to convince you. I am simply interested in good conversation.

SC

Well HK, I don't buy into the secular society's view of women "having and doing it all" either. I have seen (with my own two eyes) women family members break down (literally) after trying to play the superwoman role. For me, wanting to have an active say in my marriage and taking on the lead with respect to certain things is something that I would want to do. It has nothing to do with me wanting to have or do it all - to me, taking the lead on certain things is not doing it all.

I, personally, don't want to do it all. For me, the issue is really about a wife having to be *granted permission* to lead in certain areas that she may be proficient in and may not mind having the last word in. Toward the goal of efficiency, it makes most sense to me to have the last decision rest in the hands of the most proficient person - not the person with the male genitalia. That seems arbitrary to me. That's my whole point - trying to understand what seems like an *arbitrary* allocation of power to me. At the end of the day, it seems that it may just go back to what each person believes per his/her religion. It's just that I am not bound to any single religion (I prefer to focus on having a one-on-one spiritual connection with the Higher Being as I am led by the Higher Being as opposed to being based in a single religion) and enjoy exploring ideas.

Like I noted with Love_Spell, we are not arguing. I simply needed to discuss this issue with someone who actually believes that the man should have the final say in order to have a more well-rounded view on the matter. Talking to my girlfriends won't help b/c they believe as I do.

Thanks for the convo,
SC

Over a word
 

The problem isn't the word obey or maybe it is the wrong choice of words. If it is the overpumped ego of some men who take that word to far or the super independant woman who doesn't need a man at all and dosen't take the word seriously then the marriges are doomed anyway. I been married for 5 years and in the beginning I made the decisions for the house, if there was something I couldn't handle I would confer with my wife her decision would be law, any montary decisions were made together because they affect the household, but I don't expect my wife to take on someone who is trying to break in, I'm her protector and she always has my back by giving me the proper things to say in some situations where I know my diplomatic skills lack the smooth vernacular motion of words. Now my wife makes the decisions and anything she can't handle she defers to me, but all discussions get done before any decision is made. I know women are independant and it's about time but those women who truly think they don't need a man for anything think about ever aspect of your life,(spirtual, sexual,finacial,support,friendship,) then you are truly independant and men for those who want a robot to obey you then go to a store and build one cause it makes no sense to have someone who has no brains to totaly submit to us as men.......................Marriage is 100% both ways

This is a great topic!!!
 

This thread is absolutely great! CT4, thanks for diggin' it up! I miss Shalom. We need to find her and bring her back! Wouldn't you all agree?! She's so prohetic!

Personally, I definitely want my husband to be the head of the household. This is not a problem for me because I grew up in a household where my father was the head. My father never disrespected my mother either. Actually, there were times where they operated equally as well. For example, when I wanted to go my friend's house, mom would say, "ask your dad." Then I would go to dad and he would say, "ask your mom." Lastly, submitting to your husband shouldn't be a problem when you've personally submitted yourself to Christ. My husband and I should have our own vertical relationship with Christ; if that is in place, the horizontal relationship with husband and wife should be fine and dandy. Imagine a triangle. :D

Re: Over a word
 

Pete, I totally agree with your post. Thanks for giving us your perspective.

SC

Re: This is a great topic!!!
 

This *is* a great thread. Delph, I understand the Christian religious arguments but was more so trying to understand the *logic*. For some I know that it probably just comes down to following the text for one's religion. The problem for me is that there is more than one religion, and some people don't adhere to any single religion at all. Given that, I was trying to really get at the underlying reasoning for the whole thing - trying to go above any particular religion, since we don't all have the same religion.

I do understand the triangle. Where I get a little tripped up is why it is logical to say that the man should be the head b/c he is serving G-D in the way that he should be. Presumably, the woman would be serving G-D the way that she should be too. So if one were to use this reasoning, we could reason that there is an argument for the woman to be the head.

(Beware: This is super controversial - :)). I guess, for me, the only thing that really makes logical sense for the rule is that man is somehow superior to woman. Whether it be a closeness to the Higher Being, etc. If that be the case, so be it. But if it's really not the reasoning, then that would be interesting to know too.

Que sera, sera :)

SC

Re: Re: This is a great topic!!!
 

SC,

Basically, you are wanting to know reason why Christ decided that "man is the head" and that's really a question that only Christ can answer since He is the one who designed it so. We really can't use general, secular reasons and apply them in this situation to explain or justify this.

In the "natural", this probaby does seem illogical - which is why this only works for those couples that are Christian and want to have a marriage as directed by Christ.

Maybe there is a thread of here that talks about this in "general" terms, so to speak. Let me search and see.

*LOL*
 

OK, I did a search and why did EVERY thread have a reference to this one? :D *lol*

Nevermind SC. Looks like this is it! :cool:

Re: Re: Re: This is a great topic!!!
 

HK, I take your point and thanks for looking for a more general thread.

SC

okay...
 

When a woman decides that she loves and trusts this man enough to marry him and partner with him for the rest of her life, she should be comfortable enough with that man to 'submit' to him. If you are about to get married and think that this man will tell you to do something or be somewhere that will cause you harm or not be in the best interest of your household, why do you feel comfortable marrying him?

In a Christian marriage, it is the husband's responsibility to make sure that his family follows the Lord and lives a holy life. Therefore, the concerns that he has for his wife and family are not random, but instead spiritually inspired. And since the wife in a Christian marriage believes this also, she should understand exactly what her husband is saying and have no problem agreeing to the direction that he gives.

Too many people try to take bits and pieces of the Bible and make them fit into the secular world. Submission is not meant to make sense in a secular marriage, only in a Christian marriage. If you are not Christian and are not marrying a Christian, why question the way that Christian marriages have worked for thousands of years?

Re: Re: Re: This is a great topic!!!
 

You said what I was basically going to say. In Christianity, God the Father God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity. They are co-equal, but each has their own unique function. God the Son submitted him self to God the Father but it had nothing to do with him thinking less of himself and his role. He just had a different function.

I think that like HK said trying to make this make sense to a non Christian is probably fruitless. To tell the true it didn't make sense to me either when I was a babe in Christ. Only with me growing, studying the Word and really yeilding myself to the holy Spirit did it start to make sense.

Well...I'm now married 6 years and three months AND have a toddler and this still holds true. Finances, housework, decsions are done jointly even though I feel I do much more housework than he does :rolleyes: . One traditional role I have taken on is Mother. 85 - 90% of CJ's care is me and I'm fine with that. As long as I can have a night with the girls or a quiet night with him playing with his a dad and leaving Mommy alone...I'm cool. CJ is my husband's child but he's MY baby. :)

Re: okay...
 

Soror, my goal was not to question the *Christian* way of doing things. Since submission is not a uniquely Christian concept and since all Black people are not Christians, my goal was/is to explore the subject from a secular perspective. I continue to think that exploring this matter from a secular perspective is possible since there are those that think that submission makes sense or works best for secular reasons.

SC

My point is that it if you take something out of context, it isn't going to make the same amount of sense or even work the same.

Society has long placed the image of man as head of household in our heads. However, that doesn't mean that people agree with submission. They are slightly different, but often confused. Some men feel they are head of the house for financial reasons, age, employment status, or other things. It is not always simply because they believe that their wives should be submissive to them in all circumstances, no matter what.

!!
 

This is very true conskeeted7...its hard to understand biblical concepts in a secular sense....it just won't make sense!

My Pastor says that a man without a head is a freak. When he said this, he was saying that, if a man doesn't have God at the head of his life, he has no head and is a freak. When the word "obey" is used in the context of marriage, it doesn't mean the women has to do everything her husband tell her. i.e. bark like a dog, bring him breakfast in bed everyday, NO! The words obey and submission have been taken out of context so often. Marriage is not a cure for lust or just a practicality, but a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church. If we love Christ, we will submit our lives to Him. We know He loves us and wants only the best for us. Well, this is what is meant by obeying and submitting in a marriage. Just as Christ submitted His will to the father, husbands and wives should submit to one another. Submitting and obeying doesn't mean being a doormat. For the wife, it means she should be willing to follow her husband's leadership in Christ. For the husband, it means for him to put aside his own interests to care for his wife. If both spouses have a strong relationship with Christ, then this should not be a problem. I hope I didn't come off as preachy and my purpose was not to offend anyone, but to answer the question.

I am not married (yet?) but I agree with both above. :)

ttt for my soror! See, we have ALMOST discussed everything here! :p ;) :D