 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Carolyn Smith |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | Actually, Aaron, you've answered your own question re: the scripture above in Revelation.
Jesus died for our sin and paid the penalty when we were in rebellion. Yet, when people choose to continue on in their rebellion, the consequences of their sin will catch up with them. When He casts her into a bed and kills her children, it is not that He is punishing her. It is that she is reaping the consequences of her actions.
When there is rebellion in someone's heart, you can't beat it out of them. Sending to prison will only make them meaner. (I won't even acknowledge your last suggestion.) It is a HEART issue. God must deal with their hearts. And if that person chooses not to allow God to change them, that person (and everyone who loves them) will deal with the consequences.
God desires to give us mercy, but if we do not repent, the sin will be dealt with by Him. |
Carolyn,
Always be aware of a couple things when reading scripture.
(#1) Mixing metaphors which results in>>>
(#2) Taking an analogy beyond the scope of it's intended purpose.
Paul is certainly the master of analogy.
One of the most clear points from the Ephesians 5 passage is in fact "submission." Mutual submission. Paul uses the relationship of Christ to the church and the most penetrating example of submission is Christ dying and "giving Himself up" for her.
As I said, it has always been amazing to me how this primary emphasis of this passage is turned on it's head so that men (males) empower themselves to do just the opposite of what is instructed by the passage, while insisting women do what we (husbands) are commanded to do first..."give myself up."
And that does not leave a man being a wimp by any means.
Real men live like Jesus!  |
I agree with what you said, Tom, but I'm not quite sure how it relates to this comment.
I brought up "mutual submission" several pages ago, too.
I recall the story of an unsaved man who was not treating his wife well at all. But she continued to love him beyond how he was treating her...choosing in every situation to continue to love and honor him, even though he treated her poorly. Finally, the depth of her love for him touched him to the point that he could not longer resist. He surrendered his life to Christ.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5909
10/31/15 11:18 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Aaron, you are getting yourself worked up over nothing. I haven't addressed whether or not a husband should confront a wife who is sabotaging the marriage or the ministry because I feel it is off topic here. You are wrong to assume that some of us don't believe a confrontation should be warranted. However, I do think it would be wrong to base the confrontation on the premise that the woman must do what the man tells her to based solely on the fact that she is female. I think that is where you are getting most of your pushback, while you get more hysterical because you think we are saying a man may have no "boundaries in marriage" (to borrow a phrase from Cloud and Townsend). |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
10/31/15 11:23 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Carolyn, I hear you, my sis... |
Carolyn Smith |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | My problem is that in no case except, apparently, when it comes to our wives, do we just let the consequences take their course. The unintentional hypocrisy of this stance (assuming it's not a feminist conspiracy!) is what bothers me.
We will seek correction for a colleague, son, daughter, uncle, aunt. teacher, preacher, pastor, overseer, president, governor, senator, etc., but when it comes to the WIFE we are apparently to just pray and wait for Jesus to do something about it.
Yes, I believe that we have to handle some situations differently, especially those in which we have a closer bond, etc. But to DO NOTHING seems absolutely...sinful. It is to become guilty of the whole "he that knoweth to do good and doeth it not" concept.
Now, I don't know WHAT, exactly, to do. But neither do I know EXACTLY what to do when I have to correct my son, or a colleague, or a person in the church. Unless God gives us a word, none of us know PRECISELY what to do. But we DO SOMETHING!!! We may seek advice, we may just do the best we can, acting in love and concern (that often makes bitter medicine go down more easily, when you know that the person truly loves you and cares for you). But what we don't do is...NOTHING.
To allow a woman to trainwreck her life, her family's life, her ministry, their ministry--perhaps even their livelihood--without trying to do DO SOMETHING just seems like criminal negligence.
I'm not saying that a wife should not be treated any differently than one would a senator, for she is closer to you, certainly deserves some sort of allowances for that, etc. Further, what you do to her is certainly going to affect you.
As Quiet Wyatt indicated, it might be that there was not a thing in the world that could be done. What we DO KNOW is that praying and pleading wasn't doing the job. Divorce? Murder? (after all, you can get away with murder more easily than divorce in some churches). I'm being facetious, of course.
But I think there are things we can do that send some strong signals that the husband is not going to sit idly by while the wife runs the whole family and church over a cliff.
If a man's wife were driving a car toward a washed out bridge, I'm betting he'd do more than pray about it. But apparently our families and ministries mean far less than our own lives, so we would just say, "Honey, I want to be a better husband...and if you'll just stop the car I'll seek to do that."
Again, I don't know that there IS a good response. Jesus certainly didn't want to have to do what he did with the Jezebel, but He did it because he cares about the church. A husband would not want to have to confront a wife, I'm sure, but to protect her, the family, the home, and the ministry, he just might have to do that.
Maybe one of the reasons there are no means of dealing with an non-submissive wife, other than, apparently, praying and blaming the husband, is because we DON'T teach on it? Maybe if we did, there would be some good and redemptive (hey!) things that come out of it.
In my classes at school, if a student if failing, I offer a "pre-report card recovery." It is roughly 20 pages of WRITING. The student must write key facts 3-5 times apiece. It's not perfect, by any means. But the chance for the student to do the previous assignment is OVER. So now I give them an assignment that is meant to be onerous and difficult...yet at the same time redemptive (that is, at least they are having to write facts that can serve them in helping them grasp the material). At the same time, I want it hard enough so that no student just says, "Hey, I'll goof off for nine weeks, do a little writing, and everything will be OK." It's rough, but it's redemptive.
So, to seek to correct a non-submissive wife, one may take unpopular measures that are, at the end of it all, redemptive.
How would you treat an ADULT child that was wayward? Maybe that should be informative to some degree? |
Aaron, my friend, several have offered opinions, but you don't seem to be listening to anything if it doesn't fall in line with your viewpoint.
I believe in honoring authority, and we have in our marriage used the "man in authority" model for much of our marriage. But in our house, that pretty much means that if there is a major decision to made that we can't agree on, the final decision will rest with my husband. I've not always liked or agreed with his decisions, but I've done my best to adjust to them. Sometimes this has been a long and difficult journey, but we are still together 38 years, so I guess that says something. At the same time, I believe that God gave women a brain for a reason, and we should use it. And when my husband is out of line or acting stupid, I tell him. It's what good wives do. But I don't do it in a demeaning way (well, most of the time) nor would I ever do it in public. It's private between the two of us.
If an employee is out of line, you bring them in and talk to them and counsel them concerning the rules and your expectations. It's not necessary to yell at them or physically punish them. The policies and regulations are clear. Follow them or the disciplinary actions set forth will be followed. If you don't comply, you're out of a job.
If a child is out of line, depending on what's happened, you might talk to them, put them in time out, physically punish them, take away a cherished item or activity or make them do chores, etc. Teach them "you win or lose by the way you choose." Teach them there are consequences to actions, not so that you can control them, but so that they can grow up to be a responsible adult. And of course, you should pray for them and ask God to show you how to be a better parent and how to handle them. Children are very different, and you have to know the best way to approach some children. What works with one child may crush another, or if you go easy on some kids, they will walk all over you. So it's not one size fits all...you have to be wise in how you correct your children, so that it is most efficient.
As a child grows older, this type of punishment is not as effective, because it tends to make them more rebellious and act out worse. Then you have to resort to talking to them or taking away their keys or their phone. They might obey you or meet your requirements when you show them you are in authority, but as soon as they can get out the door, you lose that. If you win the battle, but lose the war, you haven't won much.
My wayward son that I haven't seen in 5 years has been unmoved by my pleas, my letters, my texts and every other way I've tried to reach him. I pray for him but I have to trust God to change his heart, because at this point, He is the only one that can. Punishing him (if I could) would only widen the gap. Why would I want to do that? All I can do is continue to love him from afar and continue to pray for him. I send him texts just to say "I love you." It's not about me and my needs anymore. It's about the fact that there is a broken relationship that needs fixing, and I can't do anything else to fix it.
A husband/wife relationship should be very different from a parent/child relationship. If it's not, it has very damaging effects.
A husband that is married to a rebellious wife is in a very difficult situation. I don't think anyone has said it should not be addressed. Yes, the bad behavior should be addressed - but as a wife, not as a child. Talk as two adults. I'm not saying it's going to be a nice conversation or a "Honey, you've got to change." It needs to be real and address the issues at hand. Likely at this point, your best bet is to bring in a third party for counsel, one that believes in the Bible. If it's really bad, it doesn't need to be another pastor unless he's trained as a marriage counselor. Find some professional counseling because there is probably a LOT more going on than her being rebellious. There's a reason for it, but unless you are both willing to ask the hard questions and deal with it, it probably can't be fixed. But if you have any hope of its being fixed, the wife needs to be loved enough and respected enough to be treated as an adult, even if they are acting in a childish manner. Being respected is very important to women (or at least to this one).
I don't know what else a husband could do. You can take away her credit cards, demand that she stay at home, do everything you think a "MAN" should do to control his wife, but if her heart isn't changed, none of that is going to work. Certainly you should fight for your marriage, but I'm not sure the tactics you have in mind would do any good at all.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5909
10/31/15 11:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Bonnie, FIRST OF ALL!!! |
Aaron Scott |
I never get hysterical!!!! (That's meant as a joke, of course, since the very word "hysterical" is based on a feminine stereotype.)
Bonnie, the bulk of the discussion has been about an unsubmissive wife. By the way, I didn't hi-jack the thread. Someone posted some stereotypical videos connected to someone who is largely off-the-wall on such matters, and I just followed on.
I don't think a confrontation should take place because the woman is female. I think it should take place because she's the man's WIFE. And if he is sabotaging their home, I thing she should confront HIM! No one has the right to bring sin and destruction into the home. The enemy is not the wife or husband, but the things that are being done.
What I'm riled about (if that's not to strong of a word) is that, while I hear this notion of "mutual submission" and so forth, and the notion that the man ought to love the woman as Christ loved the church, everyone gets all timid when it comes to the chastening side of Christ's love--"Whom He loves, He chastens."
A person that doesn't need chastening is not helped by chastening, right?
Exactly.
A submissive wife and a loving husband are doing just fine, thank you.
But in the case of an UNLOVING or ABUSIVE husband, you folks sure seem ready to have something to say. Leave him. Divorce him. Have him arrested. Etc.
But in the case of an unsubmissive wife, a chill fills the air just in time for Halloween. Oh, no! A man must do NOTHING except pray and blame himself if the woman isn't being submissive. After all, if the man was loving enough, she'd not be that way, right?
So that would imply, would it not, that if Jesus would just love us more, we'd never rebel, right? (SMILE)
Yes, I know the analogy breaks down. But if you folks want to use it, then take all the medicine on the spoon.
I don't know precisely WHAT to do...but doing nothing seems like the worst choice of all. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
10/31/15 12:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | My mother, after 27 years of marriage and ministry, decided to run off with one of Dad's 'friends'. After literally thousands of dollars spent by Dad for marriage counseling in an effort to salvage the marriage, Mom still persisted in her adulterous affair. Whenever we tried to plead with her to come back and not destroy our family and ministry (Mom and Dad had built their local church up to 200 steadily over many years), all Mom could say was, "I know what the Bible says but I'm NOT gonna do it!"
I honestly don't see how treating her like a child (or even a good spanking!) would have helped her to stop being rebellious and start being submissive. She made her adult choice to rebel against God, destroy her family and for all intents and purposes, killed her husband's spirit and ministry for good. |
Wyatt, ma dear brother, I felt like weeping an all when I read this. I don't even know ya, but I grieve over the pain and suffering this must have caused ya dad, you, ya family, an the church. My heart goes out to ya, son, an I can only pray fer the good Lords grace fer all of ya. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15564
10/31/15 12:58 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
Something here ain't working! I hear the same things said in different ways. the facts are, who knows if everything that CAN LOGICALLY be done has not been done and the train wreck is still coming. Most likely the man (or woman) will not advertise what steps they have taken (being ashamed of the situation anyway).
Some folk ain't smart enough to be married and shouldn't be, and it they are they probably ain't gonna be long.
I really have enjoyed this discussion, I think! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24275
10/31/15 1:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
Aaron, you have shared ya heart an position on this subject. Thank ya fer bein honest.
But the ole timer does have a request. Do ya think you could gently encourage your wife to register and start postin on Acts? I wanted to ast her if she feels the same way you do bout all this stuff.
Thank ya in advance fer considerin ma request. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15564
10/31/15 1:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Cojak wrote: | | Some folk ain't smart enough to be married! |
Would it be the same thing, Cojak, if I said "Some folk is too stupid to be married?"
Hey, you dead right, bro. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15564
10/31/15 1:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
OTCP,
Thanks. It's been over 25 years, Dad passed away 10 years ago, so for the most part the pain is over. But it was a grievous, terrible thing to endure for many years. Selfishly pursuing personal happiness with no regard for those you are supposed to love is incredibly wicked and destructive.
Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 10/31/15 10:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
10/31/15 2:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Do us a favor, Aaron |
bonnie knox |
The time that you would spend writing the next long post about how rebellious wives should be disciplined, confronted, and/or chastened and how we, on Acts, are such hypocrites for not jumping on your bandwagon--how about taking that time to read back through some of the posts on this thread. You have obviously missed some. Maybe you missed the ones that were posted while you waxing eloquent about the relationship of Jesus Christ and the churches mentioned in Revelation.
| Quote: | What I'm riled about (if that's not to strong of a word) is that, while I hear this notion of "mutual submission" and so forth, and the notion that the man ought to love the woman as Christ loved the church, everyone gets all timid when it comes to the chastening side of Christ's love--"Whom He loves, He chastens."
A person that doesn't need chastening is not helped by chastening, right? |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
10/31/15 5:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| bonnie, nah... |
Aaron Scott |
You first.
After all, you have apparently gathered that I am something of a Neanderthal who believes women are to be belittled and enslaved. So that right there proves you didn't give my posts too much time did you? You know, moral outrage and all (SMILE)
Anyway, I prefer to wax eloquent.
Love ya, sis. We'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
10/31/15 7:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Aaron, I had read every post on the thread, some multiple times. I'm generally a pretty careful reader. It would be very unusual for me to reply to someone without having carefully read what he or she said. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
10/31/15 9:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Aaron, have ya considered the old timers request yet? I'm still curious how she feels bout your disciplinary stance. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15564
10/31/15 11:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Link, if your intention was to generate discussion, |
Link |
| bonnie knox wrote: | I'd say pat yourself on the back; this thread is on its fourth page.
When you ask if pastors neglect the topic of wives submitting to husbands, I infer that you are concerned that it is being neglected. If you want folks to weigh in on whether they have heard pastors deal with this topic, my personal experience is that yes, they do, and they don't do a very good job of it. Outside my personal experience in Pentecostal and Southern Baptist churches (such as things I read on the internet), it seems the Reformed Church and Fundamental Baptists focus heavily on it and do a horrible job of it with people like Mark Driscoll using it to berate as a sinner a woman who was reluctant to give her husband oral sex or people like John Piper suggesting that an abused wife perhaps should endure the abuse for a season. |
I would think that Mark Driscoll is very much not typical of Reformed and Baptist type preachers when it comes to the topic of sex. He's lost his position not too long ago, too. I haven't read the quotes from Piper you are talking about. I've listened to a few sermons from him online, a very likeable guy, especially for a Calvinist. What you posted does remind me of the fact that Peter's instructions to wives comes after a passage encouraging slaves who were being wrongly abused, a form of domestic abuse, that suffering for doing right is commendable before God. I think people can go to the opposite extreme. I've seen people almost condemn women who were abused for staying with their husbands, or at least make them out to be stupid. I've heard testimonies about women whose husbands were abusive who endured, prayed for their husbands, and their husbands got saved. A couple of these testimonies were about husbands who became preachers, too.
I don't agree with the idea that if one spouse is abusive-- and I say one spouse because some women are violent too-- that they can just get a divorce and remarry without it being adultery. That's not what Jesus taught.
Something else we need to consider is that there is forgiveness for sin, even stigmatized sins like abusing wives and children, child molestation, homosexual behavior, etc. Just thinking of people as monsters who deserve to die isn't the right way to approach it. We have to be able to minister to people and love people who have sinned. I'd rather see churches helping restore marriages that previously were violent than breaking them up.
| Quote: | | It seems to me there are a few reasons the pastors who do address the issue, do so. First, there seems to be a desire to protect a system in which men can dominate their wives or have their own selfish will served. |
What system? Maybe among some really conservative stream of churches, such a system exists. But I haven't really seen that with US Pentecostals or Charismatics, and certainly not in society at large. And I've never heard that sort of thing preached in any church I've gone to that does address the topic of marriage roles. Men are always told to love their wives when Ephesians 5 comes up.
| Quote: |
I think you would like to tell yourself that your concern is that because it is in scripture, it should be taught; however, I don't think I've noticed such angst about whether some of Paul's (or Peter's) other admonitions are followed such as greeting one another with a holy kiss or women wearing head coverings while praying or women not wearing braids. |
If you interpret the head covering to refer to pieces of cloth and interpret the passage to mean it is for all churches, then you should cove your head. The holy kiss thing isn't the easiest topic for me because I'm an American. But I think we should follow this. I'd be more inclined to apply it as some obscure Orthodox churches method of hand kissing, either that or high class air kisses with no saliva contact.
| Quote: |
Perhaps your concern is the high rate of divorce. Do you think that hammering away at women being submissive will solve the problem? Are you trying to blame the state of marriage on one gender? |
I don't see wives not submitting to their husbands as the one issue that will solve the divorce issue. But it is certainly one aspect of a larger problem. I don't blame wives not submitting to their husbands only on women either. (A lot of preachers who don't address the topic are men, and all husbands are men.) Men not leading is a huge issue in marriage.
The divorce and remarriage issue is a big problem because of the way many people think of marriage, as something they'll stay committed to as long as it feels right. Divorce is an option in people's minds, and not just for things that used to be 'grounds' but for emotional reasons or self-fulfillment. Divorce is easy. It isn't stigmatized or even that frowned upon in society. A man can leave his wife and divorce her for no good reason, and there are women who would consider marrying him, and not just prostitutes or drug addicts. A woman can leave her husbands for no good reason, and there are men who would consider marrying her, and not just old ex-convicts who can't find anyone else.
This topic not being addressed in churches may be a much bigger problem than submission in marriage.
| Quote: | | If you found that marriages in which the husband and wife practiced mutual submission were actually better, stronger, and less likely to end in divorce would you concede that is a viable way to conduct a marriage? |
How do you define 'mutual submission.' No matter whether one takes 'submitting to one another' in that passage to mean that who submits to whom is laid out later in the book (wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters) or as 'mutual submission', women still have a special responsibility to submit to their husbands. I Peter 3 illustrates the submission wives should show to their husbands by referring to Sarah's obedience to Abraham.
As far as research goes, I read something from a Dallas seminary grad who was trying to argue that egalitarian marriages were happier than traditional marriages. But the problem was, 'traditional marriage' was a factor in a factor analysis that included the couple having communication problems. Marital problems were built into the research's definition of 'traditional.' I suspect that couples with communication problems could experience some unhappiness. That's not the same definition of 'traditional' that we use in discussions of interpretations of scripture in relation to marital roles.
| Quote: | If your concern is the state of marriage, is it possible that trying to inject a hierarchy that is not a Biblical requirement is actually counterproductive? If submission within marriage is all one way, what about the whole concept of Christian humility? Must we throw out the verses such as Philippians 2:3 which says
"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." and Romans 12:10 which says "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;"? Or do we say that husbands are exempt from behaving that way toward their wives? |
I believe a husband should follow Philippians 2:3 in relation to his wife. Christ clearly has a high role in the 'hierarchy' with us, but He did that. Leading like Jesus means putting those you lead before yourself in all sorts of ways. In the Bible wives submitting to their husbands and husbands loving their wives go together. The two ideas are not in conflict with each other.
| Quote: |
(Presumably because she is not really an equal, but like a child who must be disciplined??) |
When it comes to this topic, use of the word 'equality' is rather meaningless. Orwell wrote a book that was a metaphor for the French Revolution, animal farm. When Napolean took over, something was added to the saying, "All animals are equal." Now it was, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
'Equal' doesn't really have to mean anything. Use it, and it will make Americans feel better. Preachers like to tell husbands and wives they are 'equal' because it makes them feel better when they tell wives to submit to their husbands. It doesn't have to mean anything. It just makes people feel better. It's like the word 'freedom.'
If everyone is 'equal' in what way are we equal? I'm I equal to Shaq in playing basketball? No. Am I equal in height with him? Am I equal in weight with a champion distance runner? No. In skill at running? No. Am I equal in mathematical ability with a PhD in engineering? No.
What about my wife? Are we of equal height? No. Weight? No? Upper body strength? No, I win. But I'd lose in a cooking competition, or song writing, or some other area where my wife is really talented. And she is not my equal in using Excel functions or doing statistics.
In church is a young, new believer the equal to the pastor in terms of church hierarchy or responsibility? No. At work, are you your bosses equal in terms of authority? No. In marriage, are husband and wife equal in terms of who is the leader, head, or whatever you want to call it? No.
You can say we are all of equal value in the sight of God. I don't know how any of us can know that unless the Spirit speaks it to someone. The Bible doesn't teach that. 'Equality' is important to the modern western world view, but it is not a Biblical emphasis. The word shows up once in the New Testament in the KJV where Paul is trying to convince a church to share it's belongings with another church in another city, so that there might be an equality.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 5:06 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Quote: | | Do you think preaching on wives submitting to their husbands will solve marriage problems when Paul himself said that people who are married will have trouble in the flesh? |
I believe good teaching on wives submitting to their husbands can help a lot of Christian marriages. I do think it could help with some marriage problems that lead to divorce. It's not the only thing, of course. Adultery is a huge problem, too. There are other issues that lead to divorce, and the whole way society thinks of marriage and divorce is an issue, from the culturally engrained concept that marriage is all about individual happiness to romanticized ideals about falling in love and a certain concept of 'love' being the most important thin.
I do think there are cases where wives not submitting to their husbands and respecting them, and the husbands going along with that way of thinking, leads to divorce. In some marriages the wife is more dominant and insists on getting her way. She pushes or manipulates, and he gives in. She likes it in the moment. But because he's a wus about it, and because she isn't designed to be the leader in the marriage, she loses respect for him (or even more respect.) If he'd have exercised some leadership, she might have respected him more. But she gets bored and apathetic toward her nice husband, and divorces him and leaves him for someone more exciting. Wives not submitting seems to go hand in hand with men not leading.
| Quote: | | If indeed divorce rates could be drastically lowered by the complete subjugation of women, even if it meant men will be enabled to be dominating and self-centered, would you be for it? |
Well, that looks like a loaded question. I'm not for 'the complete subjugation of women.' I'm for wives submitting to their husbands. What do you have in mind? Some kind of Shariah law where women are not allowed to drive and can't go shopping without a husband, brother, or father?
They could do away with almost all legal divorce just by doing what the Philippines does and not have legal divorce. But I don't think our society would go for it.
| Quote: | | Your second question was how neglecting the topic of wifely submission affected marriages. Again, I infer that you think marriages would be better if this topic was hammered on. My take is that if the topic is handled well, it could improve things, but I RARELY HEAR THE TOPIC HANDLED WELL, and it would be better to not address it at all than botch it. Again, I can feel so much resistance to the thought that a pastor would not address this topic, but, again, where is the angst about other topics that are left out? |
The word of God is a wonderful and powerful thing. The Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands and to respect ('fear') their husbands. Peter indicates that wives are supposed to obey their husbands. But the Bible also teaches husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and it gives us a great deal of information of how Christ does that. And Peter warns husbands to be understanding of their wives and to honor them that their prayers be not hindered. There is a balance there. That is something that can and should be taught, not avoided for fear that someone might botch it up.
I rarely hear the topic handled well because I rarely hear it handled, at least with most Pentecostal groups I've been around recently. I haven't spent much time in the southeast in many years, though.
| Quote: | | And why is the angst about this topic so disproportionate? |
I don't follow this forum every day, but I don't recall the topic being mentioned for a few years. I don't see that angst about the topic is disproportionate. I've seen a lot of posts that mention divorce or other marriage related problems since then.
| Quote: | | I honestly think people who are so sure that rebellious wives are the single most important factor causing the degradation of marriage in our culture are just not out there in the trenches actually dealing with people or else have a blind spot about women being actual enfranchised adults who are capable of handling themselves. |
Single most important factor? I don't know about that. It is an issue, though, in lots and lots of homes. A lot of people haven't seen a role model of a man who lovingly leads the household while the wife submits. Many pastors don't draw a lot of attention to role models who do this or to the topic.
Who said women can't handle themselves? We all handle ourselves, whether good or bad. The question is how we should do so. When it comes to marriage, wives are to handle themselves by submitting to their husbands, as unto Christ, and to respect their husbands. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church.
Btw, I didn't bring up the thing about disciplining wives. Aaron posted a couple of links that the thread went in that direction. That wasn't what my OP was about.
| Quote: |
Now, to the sticky question: what does a wife submitting to her husband look like? To which, I might add, does it do scripture a disservice to think it might look different in the United States of America in the 21st century than in the Greco-Roman culture of 1st century Ephesus? Again, I anticipate a strong push back to the suggestion that scripture could have different implication for different cultures, |
I don't see that as a problem. I do see a problem when people just use culture as an excuse for not obeying the word, as liberals do with homosexuality, but conservatives will make the same argument for other things.
I suspect how a wife submits to her husband should look different between couples, depending on what the other spouse needs. How you love someone is going to differ based on the individual. We want, need, and desire different things.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 5:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | For me, primary intent is disclosed to the extent we are able to determine the earliest declared intent on any matter. Where it concerns the relational disposition of the husband/wife relationship and matters of "rule," Genesis 1:26-27 would seem to inform us of PRIMARY INTENT. |
Hi Tom,
You've mentioned redemption as a theme in some past posts on the topic, but this is the first time I've seen a detailed explanation of it.
| Quote: |
In terms of the INTENT of submission: I think it is modeled by Jesus Christ in His relationship to the Father. (Arguably, this would be the earliest expression of primary intent, since it happened before the foundations of the world ).
And the object/goal/purpose of the submission of the Son to the Father is about accomplishing REDEMPTION, not establishing RULE. |
I'm not to keen on the 'primary intent' approach since God clearly has several goals. And one might argue that redemption is about rule. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God being nigh. Wasn't the crucifixion, resurrection, and redemption of believers partly about setting right what was made wrong with the fall, and bringing the redeemed into a proper place in the kingdom of God.
Here are some verses from I Corinthians 15,
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
All these things, including the future resurrection and the destruction of death end with 'that God may be all in all.'
I think seeing all these things as about redemption and NOT rule is a false dichotomy. Both are very much intertwined. Jesus redeemed us, and it set us right in relation to the rule of God.
| Quote: |
The first representation of male rule over the woman is in the language of the curse in Genesis 3:16. |
For Paul in I Corinthians and I Timothy, man's position in marriage doesn't derive from the curse. Man was made first. Woman came from man. The man is the head of the woman (or the husband of the wife.)
In the creation account, woman was made from man. This speaks of Christ and the church. Paul told of this mystery in the same passage where he tells wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives as their own bodies. The creation of woman passage, maybe the first presentation of the gospel in scripture, precedes the passage about the curse.
| Quote: |
The goal of submission was redemption not rule.
Ephesians 5 opens the segment in question with the instruction to "submit to one another." And then the text follows... The broad reality of the passage calls us to the same attitude that initiated the Son emptying Himself and dying to restore and REDEEM a broken relationship in conflict (you know, where we become "enemies")...and that remedy is:
SOMEONE in the relationship has to empty themselves of their entitled place in order to redeem the conflict at hand...
SOMEONE in the relationship has to be willing to cross over and meet the other one on their terms...
SOMEONE has to submit themselves to taking redemptive initiative... |
So when you talk about emptying yourself of your entitled place, how does that apply to the role as husband? Christ emptied himself of so much that He had before being born as a man. But He did not empty Himself of being in a position for the church to submit to Him. He served His disciples, but He still said to them, "You call me Master and Lord and ye do well for so I am." He told them what to do. He sent disciples out out to get a donkey to take him into the city. Apparently, He'd give Judas or other disciples instructions. The disciples took His instructions to do what he did quickly to be some ordinary regular thing regarding the groups finances. They'd seen that before. Jesus was still in charge. He didn't lay down His role as Leader, even when He ministered to them as a Servant.
But I do think it is good if the husband takes the leadership with resolving conflicts that arise, is humble about it, etc. Giving up his entitled place as head/leader, etc., though, is problematic, since he needs to exercise that in a proper, loving way as a stewardship issue.
| Quote: |
What is amazing is how we have absolutely turned this redemptive narrative on its head so that we men might stand back, insist on the ENTITLED position of headship of the husband, and assert the problem can only be remedied by establishing RULE and demanding submission on the part of the wife! |
My dad was a bit more old school than I have been as a husband. Mom stayed home for most of my childhood, and she'd cook and serve him drinks (iced tea, I mean.) She'd do the housework. He'd mow the grass, fix the cars, and do anything mechanical I have been a bit more modern, I suppose. I'm not a domineering type. I had somehow gotten this false idea of humility that a leader isn't supposed to exert his leadership.
My wife's folks are Batak. Batak people, or at least her relatives, actively teach their kids to respect them. They'll say, "You need to honor your parents." "Is that a way you talk to your mother." They will admonish young adult children in front of other relatives. It's kind of a different culture. It was a bit strange of me to see parents emphasizing so much honoring themselves. But actually, I see there is a place for it, especially with your kids when they are small. Children need to be taught to honor their parents, and it's the parents job to teach them that, since that is part of the word of God.
I also realized that as a husband, I need to encourage my wife to obey the word of God, which includes submitting to me and respecting me. As believers, we need to be encouraging one another. My wife also encourages me in following the word of God. If she were to mess up in the area of submission or reverence/respect, it effects the marriage and the household. And it would be wrong for me not to call her on it, just as it would be wrong not to point out other areas of sin. Just as a fellow believer, I should do that. The Bible says not the hate your neighbor in your heart but to rebuke your neighbor frankly lest you share in his sin. If I love my wife, I should want her to submit to me, because I want her to have a right relationship with the Lord, and that's part of it.
If my wife were disrespectful and unsubmissive to me, and I didn't say anything, thinking I were somehow being redemptive by suffering due to her sin, so I didn't admonish or rebuke her, I wouldn't be performing my role properly as a husband. (I'm really blessed with my wife, btw.)
| Quote: |
To me there is no single recurring point of glaring blindness and missed redemption! AND WE HAVE MADE A CREED of this blindness. We have made a sacrament of the curse of Genesis 3:16. |
Roman Catholics consider marriage a sacrament. Wives submitting to their husbands is a part of the mystery of marriage, related to the account of the creation of woman, which preceded the curse.
| Quote: |
Side note - The fact that Paul uses the language of the prevailing understanding of domestic social constructs of marriage of the his time (namely, male domination), and that they were the norm can no more be taken as a divine prescription than does his instructions to slaves submitting being understood as a sanctifying of the institution of slavery. |
American culture and western cultural in general is very anti-slavery. That doesn't mean that we should project our own culture onto God and think that He considers slavery to be sinful. I'm not for reinstituting slavery, but God gave commands regulating it in the Old Testament. He made a covenant with a slave owning patriarch, and the New Testament talks about the love a slave owner had for the brethren in the body of Christ. The Bible never tells Christians that we all must be slaves, and tells slaves to opt for freedom if they have the opportunity. But if a Christian is a slave, he should obey what the Bible teaches about slavery. 21st century American disdain for slavery does not cancel out what the Bible teaches. Modern people don't usually choose to be slaves, and it isn't legal. But many people do choose to get married. And if they marry, they should follow what the Bible teaches about marriage.
Your quote there seems rather liberal to me. How is it a different approach from the LGBT activists with what they do with Romans 1? Some of them say that Paul, in his day, was unfamiliar with loving gay relationships and that his comments were culturally influenced.
In Ephesians 5, Paul ties his arguments to the account of the creation of woman account, two shall be one flesh. That's an important Gospel mystery, not something to be writing off as culture. His writings in I Timothy and I Corinthians argue from the creation of man and woman.
| Quote: |
Last - Everyone makes the point that when two people are living harmoniously in reflection of agreed principles, submission really is not seen. We all agree that submission happens only in the face of a disagreement or conflict. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit understood the same thing...and the incarnation only happened because the Son said - "Let submission start with Me!" And we know the rest of the story of redemption... |
Jesus submitted to the Father when He emptied Himself. He submitted to the Father when He was crucified. He didn't do so because the church (or His disciples) told Him to be crucified. Peter tried to talk Him out of it. Jesus said, "Get thee behind me Satan...."
As far as submission goes, for some men, I suppose the idea of the wife submitting to her husband can be an ego-fulfilling thing. It is not a good thing if a man wants his wife to submit to him to fulfill some selfish desires. "Woman, rub my feet. Lick the dirt out from under my toe nails. Then go polish the cracks between the tiles in the kitchen again tonight with your tooth brush. Don't forget to brush your teeth before you go to bed with me. Bwahaha!" Husbands are supposed to love their wives like Christ loved the church, and that comes with a great responsibility.
But again, a husband who loves his wife and knows and loves the word of God should want his wife to submit to him and honor him. Just like a father who loves his children will want his children to honor and obey him. If I love my wife, I don't want her to be disobedient to the word of God in some area of her life just because her being disobedient to the word of God allows me to suffer in some way or feel more humble. If I wanted to feel spiritual and humble by suffering, I could just go all medieval monastic and whip myself or sleep in the snow like Martin Luther before he realized that 'the just shall live by faith'.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 6:10 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | I totally agree with Tom's texts on relationships. In fact, I have already lifted some of it and used in a situation I am trying to help folks work through. Thanks Tom.
However, I must say I am intrigued by Aaron's question. A pastor has an unsubmissive wife - and through whomever's fault - the situation needs to be corrected. It looks bad. There is a Jezebel spirit that has taken root in the wife. How is that corrected?
|
If a man does not rule his house well, he is not qualified to start out in the role of an overseer of the church. If a man becomes unqualified, should he step down, or once he is appointed as a pastor, is he in there for life? I think more along the lines of step down until he is qualified.
And having a really unsubmissive wife causing trouble would mean that he's not ruling his house well. The behavior of wives and children can cause a man's house to get out of order. There is also the implication that how he rules his house has something to do with whether his children are obedient. Wives don't as much attention in the I Timothy 3 passage, but they are a part of the house. Slaves might have been a part of the house and if he were lacking in how he handled his slaves or servants, that could disqualify him as well.
I've got a question. What do you mean by 'Jezebel spirit'? I assume you don't mean the actual ghost of the dead Canaanite woman Jezebel. Do you mean an actual demonic entity or principality, or a kind of spiritual condition that was like Jezebel? Does this mean the wife is encouraging people to fornicate and eat meat offered to idols like in the Old Testament or in Revelation, or is she just trying to take over her husband's leadership role? Or is it the painted fingernails?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 6:25 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Bonnie... |
Link |
| John Jett wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | I stand corrected. |
Maybe you should start a new thread on how to properly discipline your wife. |
That's probably a good idea. If we have posters who aren't convinced a wife should submit to her husband, maybe we should deal with that here, and have another wife discipline/confrontation thread.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 6:29 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| John Jett wrote: | | My wife is neither my employee, NOR my child, (like I've said a few times) |
Yeah, she's you wife. A wife is supposed to submit to her husband. You can look it up in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3 and I Peter 3.
Children are supposed to obey their parents.
The Bible doesn't specifically say for employees to submit to their bosses, but there are a number of relationships that require submission that aren't specified. it does tell slaves to submit to their masters, and we can apply the principle.
_________________
Link
Last edited by Link on 11/1/15 6:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 6:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Slaves should obey their masters no matter what. Slavery is God's design, and inherently manifests God's own authority.
It's scriptural, period. |
If you decided to find some place in the world where slavery is legal, and decided to sell yourself as a slave, you should do what the Bible says and obey your master, being subject to the Lord first and foremost. I suppose that would be ISIS territory, so a Christian who did that might not be around long.
Most people have the good sense to know not to sell themselves into slavery. But plenty of people do get married. If someone decides to get married, he should do what the Bible teaches. Obedience to man is always secondary to obedience to God.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/15 6:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
