21 Theses on Submission in Marriage

  1. The teaching of Scripture on this subject is perspicuous and plain. What God requires of us in our marital duties is taught in multiple places, and not in obscure ways.

 

  1. We live in a time when honest exegesis is routinely threatened with calumny, and there are frequently honors and rewards for dishonest exegesis. It should not be surprising that we are getting less and less of the former, and more and more of the latter.

 

  1. Natural revelation teaches us the natural submission of the wife to the husband. These realities are in our bones, and the revolt against them lies at the foundation of our current cultural madness.

 

  1. The scriptural requirements are entirely consistent with this natural revelation. The God who created the world, and who fashioned us in His image as male and female, is the same God who inspired the writers of Scripture. Whenever natural revelation and special revelation appear to conflict (they do not ever contradict in fact), we should submit to the express words of God. But in this case, there is not even an apparent contradiction.

 

  1. The Bible does not require a universal submission of women to men, or the necessary submission of any given woman to any given man. The Bible requires women to be submissive to their own husbands, which is a protection against having to submit to men generally. Further, because no one can serve more than one authority, this scriptural teaching amounts to a prohibition of a woman submitting to other men. Nor does Scripture require a new absolute submission to her husband. No authority in this fallen world is absolute, and includes the authority of a husband. When the authority of a husband turns rancid, a wife should receive the help of fathers, brothers, friends, and/or elders to help her stand up against it. I have been involved in this sort of intervention more than once.

 

  1. At the same time, in a healthy society, if wives are generally submissive to their own husbands, there will be a cheerful deference to the leadership of men generally, a reality to be welcomed and not resented. This is a deference to the fact of male leadership, not the quality of it. When male leaders are tyrants, fools, and scoundrels, godly women will have as much objection to it as godly men do.

 

  1. The requirement of submission within marriage does not prohibit the occasional circumstance when a woman in civil society finds herself in a leadership role over men. Deborah, Esther, and Lydia come to mind. At the same time, when feminine leadership becomes widespread and common in a society, it is not a sign of progress at all, but is rather a sign of cultural decadence driven by male fecklessness.

 

  1. In Christian theology, there is no tension between authority and submission on the one hand, and essential equality on the other. God the Father is the eternal Father to the Son, and yet the Father and Son are equally the one true God. The husband is the head of his wife, and yet they are one flesh. Men and women stand on level ground when it comes to being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), when it comes to the fact of our fall into sin (1 Cor. 15:22), and when it comes to our position in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Men and women are clearly equal in these senses, and so the teaching of the Bible elsewhere on the submission of a wife to her husband means that submission to an equal is not an incoherent concept.

 

  1. Women have a deep creational need to be loved and led, so that they might submit and follow, and men have a deep creational need to be respected and followed, and when these needs are thwarted or otherwise frustrated, the end result is deep unhappiness for both sexes.

 

  1. At the same time, because of the curse that followed the Fall, women have a deep resistance to dutiful submission, even though such submission would lead them into the joy and true satisfaction that comes from obeying God. It may or may not improve the marriage (depending on his sin issues), but it will most certainly improve her walk with God. The prophecy that her “desire shall be for her husband” was not speaking of romantic getaways, but rather predicting that there would be a struggle for mastery. So instead of trying to gain mastery over her husband, she should struggle to gain mastery over this besetting impulse within herself.

 

  1. The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.

 

  1. The fact that husbands cannot mandate or manufacture this does not make it any less mandatory. Wives are to be submissive to their own husbands in everything. The marriage service rightly includes a vow for the bride to obey her husband.

 

  1. The relation of head and body is a constant relation, one that does not come and go. It is not the case that the husband has mere tie-breaking authority.

 

  1. Liberty for Christian wives cannot be enjoyed outside of their appointed sphere. A woman who rejects her obligation to love, honor and obey is like a bird who has thrown away the “constraints” of having wings.

 

  1. Submission is an erotic necessity. The abandonment of this basic marital responsibility is the cause of much unhappiness, and has also been a cause of the resultant pursuit of erotic delusions offered by multiple partners or by various perversions.

 

  1. Submission practiced poorly does not discredit those who practice it well, and neither does it vindicate those who do not attempt it at all. And conversely, the decision to accept the Bible’s teaching on this subject does not obligate one to defend the many appalling things that are done in the name of following the scriptural pattern. A math student who does all his problems wrong and the student who refuses to do them at all have far more in common with one another than they do with the student who did his assignment properly and turned it in on time.

 

  1. The liberation of women was a false flag operation. The true goal was the liberation of libertine men, and in our day this was a goal that has largely been achieved. These were men who wanted the benefits for themselves that would come from easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture. The early twentieth century was characterized by the Christian wife. The early twenty-first century is characterized by the tattooed concubine. And these sons of Belial have the chutzpah to call it “progress for women.”

 

  1. The general dominance of men over women is inescapable. And so this means that when godly rule (via submission in the home) is relegated to the margins, it will be replaced by an ungodly domination over women everywhere else. We cannot succeed in placing men and women on the same footing. But the attempt to do so can most certainly result in Bruno taking his showers at the YWCA.

 

  1. The God who gives us our commands is the same God who designed and created us. His commandments are therefore good, righteous, and true, and they fit perfectly within the creation order. As wives seek to learn how to live these principles out, they are trying to overcome sin. They are not trying to overcome their nature. Rather, they are growing up into their true nature, which is the only liberation that matters.

 

  1. Submission that is invisible is not really submission at all. As submission is cultivated in the home, it needs to be expressed. It cannot exist as a set of hidden resolves or good intentions. Respect must be verbalized, and the demeanor of submissive deference must be plain to everyone in the home.

 

  1. For each one of these theses, there is of course a corresponding set of responsibilities for the men. Not only so, but the failure of men to conform to God’s pattern has been more spectacular than the failures of women. But I am not listing those responsibilities here because we live in a time such that whenever submission is mentioned, we rush to explain, qualify, contextualize, and otherwise assure the world what we don’t mean. We “explain away” feminine responsibilities today far more readily than we do with responsibilities for men—and this is part of the false flag move which consistently lets men off the hook. If wives don’t have to follow, then men don’t have to lead. We have done this so much that scarcely anyone knows anymore what we do mean by submission. So I am just going to say that the Bible teaches submission for wives, and it is glorious thing.
Skip to 410 Comments
Letters
Submit A Letter to the Editor. Well-written, fair-minded letters may be interacted with in featured posts. Also, please mention the title of the post which you are addressing.

410
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
45 Comment threads
365 Thread replies
7 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
60 Comment authors
Pamela ParizoNonnadgPeterJill Smithbdash Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jane
Member

Excellent. I was hoping for one more though — what submission is, and is not. Is it never having an idea of your own if it might conflict with what your husband had in mind? (Presumably not.) Is it challenging, bickering, pushing up until the very moment your husband declares his decision final, and then giving in with an external grace, while comforting oneself about the holiness of submitting to such a knuckleheaded thing? (Presumably not.)

So what IS it?

OKRickety
Member

I agree that a short explanation of submission would have been helpful. Unfortunately, Wilson seems to suppose that readers are already familiar with his work. He seldom provides links to related posts, nor does he often “tag” his posts to make it easier for the reader to find related posts.

So, I did a little search and found Seven Theses on Submission. Other relevant posts can be found using his “Search from Dan to Beersheba” with titles 7 Reasons Why Submission is not a Dirty Word and Submission as the S Word.

Jane
Member

Well, my point was more that it would seem important to include that as one of the theses if you’re going to make a fairly long list of them. I have his books, so the my point wasn’t so much looking for the answer, as “why isn’t this included?”

OKRickety
Member

I have already agreed with you in concept, and provided a possible reason why Wilson did not include more detail. Perhaps he will reply and provide you a definitive answer.

Jane
Member

Well, I don’t mean to be argumentative, I was just pointing out that the reason (“he has addressed this elsewhere and doesn’t like to repeat himself”) doesn’t satisfy my concern, which is, that if you’re going to make a series of propositions about your foundational beliefs about something, the actual definition of the thing belongs among those foundational propositions, not merely somewhere else in case someone wants to reference them. It’s just odd to me that defining the thing isn’t considered essential to any list of propositions *about* the thing. But it’s not my blog; I was just expressing an… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Because “22 theses” doesn’t have the same ring

B Josiah Alldredge
Member

I dunno, it would fit the hebrew alphabet better…

Jill Smith
Member

Jane, all I know is that if every husband were Mr. Knightley, this whole issue would be a lot simpler. Charlotte Lucas has to know that her husband is a canting fool, so she does her best to soften his absurdities so that he will be less exposed to ridicule. (She also encourages him to spend all his spare time in the garden, a point I have always admired her for.) She was wrong to knowingly marry a man whom she knew she could not respect, but having done so, is she a good and submissive wife to Mr. Collins?… Read more »

lndighost
Member

Yes, I like Mr Knightley, although these days if a grown man holds a baby in his arms and then the baby grows up and he marries her, ‘romantic’ might not be the first word that springs to the modern mind! I had a conversation this evening about submission as opposed to manipulation or passive aggression, and I had some of the same questions you did. If you ‘handle’ your husband, for example by giving a soft answer to turn away wrath, have you been wise or just manipulative? I suppose what it comes down to is whether a wife… Read more »

kyriosity
Member

Sixteen years isn’t that big a gap, and I think the book is pretty clear that Mr. Knightley’s attraction to Emma was awakened during the course of the story. His concern for her in light of other suitors and pseudosuitors (viz. Elton and Frank) appears to have been the thing that stirred up his own awareness of her appeal as a potential wife. I think he needed to see others seeing her as no longer a little girl in order to stop seeing her that way, himself.

Jill Smith
Member

That, plus spending time with his brother and sister-in-law Isabella who superficially resembles her but without Emma’s liveliness and excellence of temperament.  It’s the sudden epiphany of “Oh no, my Emma has grown up, she is the only woman I can ever love, and she is heartbroken over that knave Frank Churchill.  Fetch my horse!”

Jane
Member

Indighost is remembering a line from the 1996 Kate Beckinsale/Mark Strong adaptation, in which Knightley references having held her in his arms as a baby in the proposal scene — which is a bit odd. I don’t know why they felt the need to include that, especially in light of modern sensibilities.

Jane
Member

Well, that’s why I’m asking. As OKRickety points out, Wilson and Mrs. Wilson cover these things pretty well in their books. It just seems to me that if you’re writing about such a fraught subject, when there is so much dispute over not just the “whether,” but even about the “how” among those who agree on the “whether,” definitions belong in any list basic principles.

Jill Smith
Member

I’ve never thought of that. Can you imagine the ghastliness of their dinner table talk?

kyriosity
Member

Jill — Of a potential Collins/Mary match? Yes, I can imagine the ghastliness…but neither of them would ever have recognized it!

Prudence
Guest
Prudence

Mary would have been a better match for Mr. Collins, it would have tied up the loose end of the property.

Jane
Member

That seemed like the best solution until the end of the book. In hindsight, it’s much better for them all to have become dependent on Bingley and Darcy so that the two remaining unmarried daughters could get the benefit of some decent society and households run along the lines of propriety.

Jill Smith
Member

Mary is doomed to be a spinster aunt living in either of the households.  I can’t imagine anyone falling for Mary.

Jane
Member

Perhaps another, humbler Mr. Collins type — just wants a mistress for the vicarage but is not so puffed up as to think he can have the beauty of the neighborhood for the asking.

At any rate, being in better society where she didn’t have her sisters’ lack of interest in certain accomplishments to contrast herself with and her mother’s lack of judgment to constantly praise her, she may have become a bit wiser. People can and do improve after 19. :-)

Jane
Member

And of course, Collins was too vain and self-important to settle for Mary.

Jill Smith
Member

Just as Mr. Elton was much too proud ever to have considered Harriet, even if she had been legitimate.  She would have have made a much kinder clergyman’s wife once she grew up a bit.

kyriosity
Member

Yes…despite all his faults, he does appear to have had some small degree of natural taste for what constitutes an attractive woman.

Jill Smith
Member

That could be, but I think the deciding factor was the sister-in-law with the barouche-landau!

Jane
Member

And extensive grounds. (But I think Valerie was referring to Collins.)

Jill Smith
Member

My life ambitions are simple. All I ask is the chance to exclaim. “Are the shades of Pemberley to be thus polluted?”

df b
Guest
df b

I liked an older post where a Greek wordplay ploy suggested that Kephale means “one who fetches”

Jill Smith
Member

Perhaps, but I wouldn’t over-emphasize the woman as Golden Retriever interpretation. Biddable I may be, even doglike in my devotion, but that’s not really how I want to delight in my femininity.

wtrsims
Member

Good girl!

Jill Smith
Member

Scratch my ears!

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

>> … dishonest exegesis And there you have, in sum, the origin of nearly every single division among God’s people. It’s never been that the Bible is unclear. Never. That’s never the problem on these “controversial” issues. The problem is that we Christians are just plain dishonest. We stand ready to lie about God’s Word, in order to protect and defend our prejudices, our interests and our traditions. Whether the subject is the submission of women in the church or double predestination, we Christians are just plain ready to lie about what God has clearly spoken. God, save the Church… Read more »

ron
Guest
ron

Points 9, 11, 12, and 20 are key Respect for the husband / head of household male (if you’re a daughter) must be openly expressed, and the male cannot command it to come forward. Women hold all the cards in this respect. Men simply won’t/can’t assert authority over women against their will. Active, willful submission, as is stated in point 19, is the only way to fully express liberty in the female form, otherwise there will be sin and distress while fighting the nature of being female. We should be encouraging females to explore, expand and fully express their femininity… Read more »

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

“… because of the curse that followed the Fall, women have a deep resistance to dutiful submission, … The prophecy that her “desire shall be for her husband” was … predicting that there would be a struggle for mastery” Problematic exegesis — God brings about a curse that you’re now calling a “prediction” of more evil. Compare this with the other curses in the same passage, none of which prophecies of more evil behaviours. And these “curses” for Adam & Eve all contain blessings in disguise. Even the curse to the dragon holds promise for the Adam & Eve. Also… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Reverend Wilson, As usual well done. But, you hand off way too much to the feminists here: The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. You don’t mean this. How can one be a leader without the authority to enforce? The says men are the heads, which means both responsibility and authority. They go hand in hand together. You might suggest that enforcement through coercion or anger is sinful. You might also suggest that we have to wise about how we go about this. Suggest they we are required to enforce this… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

This is extremely well said. Was going to write something similar to this, but you have done so far better than I could. Well done. Point after point, spot on.

Jill Smith
Member

Both parties have the ultimate ability to enforce their terms by walking away from the marriage. That, plus the fact that some forms of coercion might land a husband in trouble with the law, means that attempting to enforce his authority in any significant way is not likely to work. But, even back when it did work–when there were no domestic violence laws and when women who left marriages were likely to starve–a husband could compel outward obedience and a respectful demeanor, but not the kind of mental and spiritual submission that actually means something.

Farinata
Guest
Farinata

Does Jesus’ teaching on divorce include “lack of a submissive spirit.” You surprise me.

bethyada
Member

Jill isn’t saying they are allowed to divorce for this reason, she is just expressing the ability to enforce their terms by walking away

Jill Smith
Member

Bethyada is correct. I think that anything falling under the general heading of “having trouble getting along and not having one’s expectations met” is a terrible reason for a divorce. Pragmatist that I be, I was reflecting rather on the reality that people can and do vote with their feet. Short of a major change in social norms, I don’t see this changing any time soon. This means that wifely submission is, in fact, voluntary. The threats that worked in Victorian times–not only will you starve but you will also lose custody of your children–do not work today. But I… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

I see the distinction you draw, and that’s fair enough pragmatically. But I don’t think a command being about our hearts makes it inherently unenforceable. We might as well say that the only sort of provisioning and care a wife should want from her husband is freely given? Surely the only restitution we should want from those who rob us is what they choose to return to us? Surely we don’t want people to simply restrain themselves from violence while seething inwardly with hatred for us? We shouldn’t practice outward chastity while still struggling with lustful hearts. The truth is,… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

I agree with a lot of this. But it wasn’t quite the point I was trying to make. When you compel submission by treating a wife as you would a slave, you may succeed in gaining her obedience but you will not gain her love. It seems to me that the blessings a man can expect from a wife cannot exist where her obedience is based, not on the heartfelt desire for your welfare, but rather a fear of the violent consequences of making you angry. She will serve you and obey you, but with the cringing mentality of a… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

What I disagree with is the idea that it’s all one or the other. Sure, in your example a wife who is cringing in terror of her husband’s rages is little better than a slave – that’s a terrible marriage and I readily concede it. But that doesn’t mean, on the other hand, that a husband’s authority must be entirely contingent on his wife’s feelings. There’s an intermediate position.

Jill Smith
Member

Yes, I agree with that. Earlier, you used the word “aggressive” to describe how a man might assert his authority in the face of serious lack of submission. I would prefer words like forthright and direct, meaning that you remind her of the promises she has made and that she is failing to honor them. And, speaking as a woman who has been a wife, I think this is entirely legitimate, once you are certain what you are dealing with. A lady dealing with chemo’s horrific side effects already knows that the house is in a mess and should not… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Those are perfectly fair caveats that any husband worthy of the name would be foolish to ignore.

Karen
Guest
Karen

All men need that caution. In my experience, obedience always and inevitbly leads to tyranny. A man who expects to be obeyed will demand it with whatever shouts and strikes he can get away with. That is why I have always hated the idea of “submission.” There is no possible way humans can do this that does not result in tyranny and slavery. Men are not God and are not in any way godlike.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Do we need to submit to the government? Police? Teachers?

What does a society with no leadership or submission actually look like?

Karen
Guest
Karen

I believe in strict and harsh limits of both scope and time on the authority of government. Teachers are already limited in that way — students submit during class. Once the class ends, so does the teacher’s authority. I believe the same for the government and police, and in a robust right of the populace to tell the cops to go jump in a hot lake unless the police have the proper paperwork and are actively investigating a crime. Humans always abuse authority. The only way to avoide that is to chain the authority.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I believe in strict and harsh limits of both scope and time on the authority of government. Let me start by noting that you opposed “submission” initially, but now you are expected only limited submission, so we are moving in the right direction. But we can’t stop there. If we are to limit the authority of the government, we must have someone else with the authority to impose those limits, correct? If the government oversteps its bounds, which it does routinely, BTW, who is the authority who has the rights and responsibilities to reprimand them? Authority exists by necessity. The… Read more »

Jon Swerens
Member

“In my experience, obedience always and inevitbly leads to tyranny. A man who expects to be obeyed will demand it with whatever shouts and strikes he can get away with. That is why I have always hated the idea of ‘submission’ There is no possible way humans can do this that does not result in tyranny and slavery.”

I’m happy to report that your experience is not the only experience, although your description certainly fits our current federal government. Besides, submission is inescapable. The only question is, submission to whom?

MeMe
Guest

I hear you. Completely absent from this whole discussion is the idea of grace. Women will submit quite naturally to men who know and reflect grace. It’s very easy, desirable even, to want to obey someone who would lay down their very life for you. To submit to an overgrown two year old, with a propensity for violence, not so much.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Women will submit quite naturally to men who know and reflect grace. My experience says otherwise. I have seen women stay with the most abusive and angry men imaginable. I have also seen women destroy the lives of some of the most kind-hearted men I know. The reason women submit or don’t are very complicated, but I think women tend to gravitate toward those will best provide them with security and provision. Would you disagree? But, the real problem with this statement is that it is unbiblical. There is simply no indication from the text of Scripture that sinful women… Read more »

MeMe
Guest

It is not complicated nor is it unbiblical at all. Women will submit to grace, in fact submission is actually our natural state of being. There must be a history of absent fathers, or abuse,alcoholism, witnessing misused authority, before it even occurs to women not to submit. By the time we grow up and get married the damage is already done. I love submission Kilgore and marriage too, and the bible, but flat out I would reject the entire notion in the face of the behavior and attitudes of many of the men posting right here. We certainly can “blame… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

So men are to blame for female rebellion? Not sin in the woman’s heart? Not enmity endemic to the heart of every person? “Submission is actually [your] natural state of being”? Because the Bible suggests otherwise.

And you will have to help me find that verse where men can be blamed for a woman’s sin.

bethyada
Member

While I think Meme has overplayed her position, there is some truth to the idea that men can exacerbate or ameliorate a woman’s rebellion.

OKRickety
Member

bethyada,

“While I think Meme has overplayed her position ….”

Not only is it grossly overplayed, but the position itself is very weak. The woman is still 100% responsible for her own sin, so no man can be correctly blamed for her sin. Of course, the same is true if you reverse the sexes.

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Non sequitur – just because a woman is entirely responsible to God, it does not follow that there’s no other culpability involved. There’s usually enough blame to go around. And women are, by nature, more easily led than men. So, if they have poor leadership, you would expect that to manifest in poor behavior. For which they are completely responsible: their fathers are responsible for being bad fathers.

As Doug said somewhere else, the mere fact that one lacks the moral capacity to please God does not absolve one from guilt.

Jill Smith
Member

I think what you say is true.  It is difficult to awaken an oppositional spirit in me, but there are styles of leadership that could do it.  The person exercising that authority might not realize it, but he would have temporarily lost my good will.  I think that some women are naturally submissive, and I’m one of them.  It isn’t just to men; it’s to everyone–women, children, dogs, cats.  The downside is that I might give the same degree of submissiveness to a very bad man as to a good one.  But not all women are submissive by nature, and… Read more »

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

What about Adams rebellion. Eve was deceived. Adam was in rebellion by knowing exactly what he was doing.

bethyada
Member

submission is actually our natural state of being.

Before the Fall, but not afterwards

OKRickety
Member

“Women will submit quite naturally to men who know and reflect grace.”

You regularly make this claim. What is the basis for it?

OKRickety
Member

Karen,

“All men need that caution. In my experience, obedience always and inevitbly leads to tyranny.”
I’m sorry about your experience, but it would be grossly wrong to suppose that, in all cases, a wife obeying her husband will necessarily lead to tyranny. When tyranny results, something is wrong but it’s not the obedience.

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Every man is wise to be cautious – headship can be a dangerous temptation. However, I am happy to note that in your answer “always and inevitably” is qualified by “in my experience”. Have you been married six hundred times so we could have a reliable sample, or is this just a random anecdote?

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Jill, I was careful to note that our methods of enforcement are to emulate Christ. I don’t think that He did anything for the church that would get us arrested if we did it in our marriage. I really hope you don’t think I was suggesting domestic violence. What I am pushing back against is this very feminist idea, which has taken hold in the church, that men are to never call their wives on their sin of insubmission. If I am the leader of my family, and I truly love my wife, how can I stay silent and not… Read more »

John Barach
Member

Kilgore, what do you mean by “enforcement” here? You say that you aren’t suggesting domestic violence. (Is Eagle Eye, in the comment down below?) Okay. Then what are you suggesting? You speak of “calling our wife’s sins out” (though I’m not entirely clear what you mean by that: Do you mean talking to your wife about what you see as her sinful behavior?). But surely your wife has equal authority to “call your sins out.” Identifying what you see as sin, though, is *not* “enforcement” of your leadership. Is there some sort of “enforcement” that you think husbands can engage… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

I agree with you completely, and I am so thankful that you, as a clergyman, are responding to this issue. In discussions here and on other boards, the topic of submission seems to invite input from people whose views I find a little horrifying. Whatever Christian submission is, it is not an invitation to men to emulate RIcky Ricardo’s way of handling Lucy. I wonder if such men ever reflect that treating Lucy as a child never improved her behavior or helped her grow toward maturity; it merely invited more childish deviousness and defiance. A perennial child-bride might be amusing… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

I will try to speak clearly: I don’t know. I was taught at a young age never to hit a girl, and my wife is a good sort and will almost certainly never give me the slightest reason to do so. A husband and a wife having a physical brawl strikes me degrading and totally wrong. Yet, at the same time, I think it is important that our mores come from Scripture, rather than being imposed on Scripture by whatever our culture happens to feel at a given moment. And I am not sure that Scripture forbids husbands coercing their… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Again, you are not distinguishing between the relationships. The master does not beat his slave because he loves him, but only to secure his future obedience through fear. The parent who beats his child in compliance with Proverbs does so in order that the child will become wise and not foolish. In the former case the master can inflict pain on the slave because he owns him. In the latter, the parent can inflict pain because he holds a temporary guardianship over one who has not yet reached mature years. But a wife is not owned in the sense that… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

The obvious rejoinder would be that other men’s wives are not mine to beat. But both that retort, and your implication, beg the question, so neither is particularly helpful in answering it :-). I think St Bernard is best understood as prohibiting cruelty without prohibiting any form of chastisement. Surely his agricultural audience would not see a problem with occasionally striking a mule to make it go? Rather, his point is that one doesn’t beat one’s animal to death. That the saintly men of the early church were cautioning others not to beat their wives lethally… seems in general to… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

For some Protestants, there is the prospect of formal church discipline. There is temporary separation (which I think should be reserved for extremely bad behavior). There is the right to speak to your wife seriously about her failures in submission. But in ordinary life we tend to shape people’s behavior through a system of non-coercive responses that are usually effective. We just don’t think of it as formal discipline. If my female friend is chronically late for lunch dates, one day I decide not to wait more than 20 minutes and from then on she comes on time. If someone… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

I regard all these things as modes of enforcement. Obvious – to me at least – is that the situation would have to be terrible indeed before anything more than this would be called for. But to say that stern looks and reprimands are permissible appears to imply that Doug’s Thesis 11 is in error. Would you agree?

bethyada
Member

What I said a day ago: Some of the debate here is around what enforcement means and how it is done. I suspect that Doug is saying that men are not commanded to force external compliance from their wives and that they cannot force internal compliance. I do not think Doug is saying that a husband is not permitted to teach his wife, raise potential sins with her, bring her to the church elders, etc.

I think enforce implies an asymmetrical coercion. Something a husband would be permitted to do but not a wife.

Jill Smith
Member

I agree with Doug that, ultimately, submission cannot be compelled. But I think his thesis 11, while correct in stating that husbands should lead by example, is incomplete in that it does not appear to allow a husband to state his displeasure/disappointment/grief over his wife’s conduct.

bethyada
Member

Doug does allow this.

Read For a Glory and a Covering

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Another part of the answer would be to point out that a Christian master was commanded to treat his Christian slaves not as property, but as brothers in Christ. That didn’t necessarily imply manumission, nor did it imply he didn’t punish them in various ways for disobedience. But it does suggest that love and even the most radical hierarchical relationship are not incompatible. (Of course it doesn’t follow necessarily that marriage is hierarchical in this way, or to this degree.)

OKRickety
Member

“The parent who beats his child in compliance with Proverbs does so in order that the child will become wise and not foolish.”

Did you truly intend to use “beat” in this instance? One definition of beat is: strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, usually with an implement such as a club or whip. I believe physical discipline for children is useful and Biblically approved, but beating does not seem to be the concept.

Jill Smith
Member

I used it because Proverbs uses it, and I think that if we are going to follow Proverbs’ advice, we should not soften it. I have no objection to a parent smacking a misbehaving child. But some of the advice I have read on Christian sites like “To Train Up a Child” is blood-curdling. Use an implement and do not stop until the child is broken. That is a beating, not a normal spanking, and I don’t think we should pretend that they are the same thing.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

You seem to be intentionally framing this discussion in abusive terms, rather than biblical terms, and the only reason I can think that you would do that is to undercut the biblical position that I am advocating. The husband is to lead in the model of Christ. He is to be a gentle, loving leader. In the same way, you as a minister have authority. Would you abscond your duties and refuse to bar an impenitent member from the Table? Let’s get specific. A husband starts by speaking with her about the problem. He prays for her, both privately and… Read more »

Apple
Guest
Apple

This makes an assumption that the man accepts his headship. What if a husband has never supported a wife (maybe i should stop buying him food!) and he refuses to make decisions? Is he a child to enjoy food and sex and no responsibilities because he cannot be held accountable?

lndighost
Member

Hi Apple. A man who does not financially support his family and refuses to make decisions or accept responsibility is denying his own manhood. If you are married to a man like this, I hope very much that you are able to seek biblical counsel from your church and that they will take him to task. Taking a hard line is the kindest thing to do in this case, because he will certainly be held accountable on the Last Day.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

You are right, it does assume a responsible male.

Obviously, I would never suggest a woman has recourse. No authority is absolute.

bethyada
Member

Your responses are helpful in delineating what you believe and think is permissible. I would argue that to be Christlike husbands are somewhat limited in what they can do though. Vows of marriage are to provide food, clothing and sex. These are not things one is permitted to withhold.

Other measures may be necessary if there is serious sin (like gambling, drinking etc). But I don’t think it reasonable to have sanctions for unsubmissiveness.

Jill Smith
Member

Kilgore, I cannot imagine your counseling, let alone engaging in, domestic violence. I don’t always agree with you, but you strike me as prudent, thoughtful and wise. But, as you can see from some of the posts here, there is a small number of men who do think that a certain amount of enhanced coercion is permissible, so I always want people to be clear in how they are defining enforcement. I agree with you that a husband should be able to confront unsubmissive behavior that is undermining his leadership. “Please don’t let the children see you rolling your eyes… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

One difference would be that husbands can bring up, to their wives, the sin of unsubmissiveness. Perhaps that also permits them a more aggressive attitude?

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I would never counsel domestic violence, but regrettably, I have been violent to my spouse in the past. I was a hard drinking, fighter in my past and the man I was drunk is a repulsive individual. This is why I found the doctrine of grace both impossible and the only hope I had for salvation. I have since changed dramatically, but I known all too well what it feels like to scare my family into submission. To you post, your observations are very good. You really do nail down the ways in which wives subtly undermine leadership, and these… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Well, you are not that man any longer, thank God. It must be a blessing in counseling your sons and other young men. My dad was alcoholic for many years, and although he was never violent, he was prone to rages that kept us walking around him on tiptoe. I found this experience a disadvantage in my married life in that any expression of anger, however mild, was terrifying to me. Too many times it kept me silent when I should have spoken, and yielding when I ought not to have yielded.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Unfortunately, my son began to follow in my footsteps. He was young when the Lord found me, but he had anger issues just his dad. We worked it out, but it took a few trips to the police station for fighting to sort it out.

My biggest fear was one of my four daughters would marry an abusive husband. Thank God that didn’t happen, but I did have to scare off a few suitors who I think might have been problematic. The reputation for being a bit off your rocker helps in those cases.

OKRickety
Member

Jill, “But I sometimes think that these discussions lose sight of the fact that here are two people who love each other dearly and who want the best for each other. As long as that holds true, an appeal to that love should be enough to stop behavior that is wounding one spouse or the other. Not that it worked for me in the long run, but I am still hopeful that it works for others!” I have my doubts about the factuality of marriages having “two people who love each other dearly and who want the best for each… Read more »

AnonS
Guest
AnonS

Responsibility for outcome with no authority drives people crazy. What is Church discipline, is that preventing people from really submitting because there are disincentives for bad behavior? Or should Christians be thankful for boundaries?

Faked behavior becomes real over time physically in the brain. Making yourself stand in high power posture reduces stress hormones (measured in experiments). All skills begin as practice and play.

Heidi_storage
Guest
Heidi_storage

I agree.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

I suppose that a husband cannot enforce his will upon his wife for the same reason that the State cannot use violence to compel women not to abort their children.

Lori
Guest
Lori

But that is exactly what makes submission in marriage so special, and a picture of the gospel. It is not a picture of the gospel when I submit to my boss, or the laws of the state, or a military general. That kind of enforced, hierarchical submission is necessary to maintain order, it could be argued, but it does not reveal the mystery of Christ and the church. Marriage, though, does. Marriage reveals something of the nature of Christ, and the beauty of the gospel, and the relationship of God to his church. And it reveals that because it is… Read more »

Pepe
Guest
Pepe

This.

Complementarianism is bogus, it’s a feminist-allowed controlled opposition basically.

Eagle-Eyed
Guest
Eagle-Eyed

A majority of these thesis points were rooted in a traditional understanding of the Bible, however its maddening to see feminist and liberal presuppositions still creep in. Paul’s readers wouldn’t have had much difficulty in accepting the teaching of submission given the social circumstances of the day…the fact we do speaks to the particular influence that social liberalism has on our culture, and the fact even the conservative wing of the church isn’t immune from cultural pressures. 8) 1 Timothy 2 all but rebuts the idea that men and women are socially equal. Paul specifically singles out the woman as… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“Part of loving your wife is corrective discipline.” To which the normative response would be, “Of course … what’s your point?” But today, choking on the zeitgeist, we must say, “Uh … I’m sorry … but that’s actually true.” Two worldviews in collision. We have no traction and we’re slipping away. God is defeating us. And it’s here … on this issue of men and women … men and women properly aligned and in proper relationship under God and according to His Word … that the future of the Western church hangs in the balance. It’s not the Five Solas,… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Where in scripture are men told to apply corrective discipline to their wives?

teresasdaughter
Member

Every time God sent Israel into captivity is an overarching description of that very thing.

jfk
Guest
jfk

Matthew 18:15

Jill Smith
Member

True, but that injunction applies to all Christians, not specifically husbands dealing with their wives.

OKRickety
Member

Mattew 18:15-17 does not tell men to apply corrective discipline to their wives. A husband may be the one to begin the process, but ultimately it is the church that would provide the discipline.

bdash
Guest
bdash

Men are told to love like Christ
Christ disciplines and thank goodness for that!

bethyada
Member

The Father disciplines

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“Where in scripture are men told to apply corrective discipline to their wives?” Corrective discipline is inescapably contained within the Biblical concept of headship. The man is ultimately responsible before God for the state of his marriage, which includes the sanctification of his wife. God requires the wife to obey her husband. If she does not, the husband is ultimately responsible for that violation of God’s Word. The onus is ultimately upon the husband to secure God’s will within his marriage. That’s what headship means. Now, violence is *not* one of the methods the husband may employ to secure his… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

I sense that your heart is in the right place. But taking away her hobby or TV time is what you would do to a child. It is infantilizing a grown woman. I think the goal must always be to increase maturity, not to set up a cycle of childish behavior.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

” … not to set up a cycle of childish behavior.”

You turn the issue on its head. If a wife repeatedly ignores and dismisses her husband’s correction *THAT* is the childish behavior.

One of the marks of Christian maturity is timely repentance. A wife who refuses to repent “infantilizes” herself … and just so with a man, btw.

There is too much of “the world” informing your thought, Jill.

Jill Smith
Member

Hi Kevin, I didn’t explain myself very well.  I agree that wives can act childishly, and that in so doing they are infantilizing themselves.  I don’t think, however, that buying into the childish behavior by administering a childish punishment is what brings an adult to greater maturity.   One of the luxuries of being a child is that you don’t face real life consequences for what you do wrong.  Mom may send you to your room for talking back, but when your time is up, the punishment is over and everything is as it was.  If you are very immature,… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

I find it difficult to process your reply, Jill. When you refer to disciplinary measures as “token” and “purely symbolic” I really have no idea what you mean. Such associations leave me dumbfounded. I don’t know what to say. We’ve lost the connection, so to speak. But it’s worse than that. Being a very simple man, when you start tampering with definitions and common understandings, not only do you lose me … you arouse my suspicion. I don’t like getting played and every time I read one of your comments that’s the sense I have. I brace myself for the… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

I understand, Kevin. Blessings to you too.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

” … your assertion that God holds a husband responsible for preventing his wife from committing the sin of disobedience against him.” I did not indicate that a husband can *prevent* his wife from disobeying him. As the head of the blessed union, the husband is ultimately responsible that the marriage is pleasing to God and shaped/ordered by God’s Word. So God says to the husband, in effect, “I want you to love your wife and lead her in My paths, and I want your wife to help, obey and follow you. Now get it done. It’s on your shoulders,… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Well said.

Nathan Smith
Member

“and additionally reaffirms her burden of bearing children”

I’m a little dense at times. Please elaborate.

And I would also like to know, who argues with feminists? And why?

Farinata
Guest
Farinata

I would think the question re: enforcement would regard the nature of that authority. My fellow churchman has a duty to love me as he loves himself. Yet ultimately it is not for me to force him to hold up his end – my recourse, if any, is to the elder board, and ultimately to God. So, there are at least some duties toward me that are not enforceable by me. Now, you might say that of the successive dyads husband/wife, master/slave, and parents/children, the superior has a clear responsibility of enforcement toward the inferior in two of the three,… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Parents have the right of enforcement because it is widely, almost even universally, recognized that a child of tender years lacks knowledge, capacity for abstract thought, and a sense of responsibility. Wise parents recognize that the goal of their training is to prepare the child for independence. They foresee the end of their time of governance. Nothing in this is comparable to the relationship between husband and wife. Legally you bear no responsibility for her conduct (except, in some cases, financially, and that responsibility goes both ways). Chances are that she is as intelligent and well informed as you. A… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

You are asking different questions of the analogy than I think it can helpfully answer. My point concerns the nature of the marital relationship as expressed by Paul in Eph. 5, and I note that he uses it as one of three sets of relationships, of which the other two obviously couple authority with the responsibility to discipline. The claim would be, then, that marriage may be assumed to work in a similar way unless we have contrary evidence. Add to this the widespread cultural assumptions regarding husbandly authority, which the bible no-where contravenes, and I would say the burden… Read more »

John Barach
Member

You write: “Part of loving your wife is corrective discipline.” Could you please explain what you think that “corrective discipline” ought to include, including what you think the maximum penalty a husband can inflict might be. In your second sentence, you use the word “punish” in connection with teachers and in your third sentence you speaks of the use of “force,” so it sounds as if you might be speaking of husbands punishing their wives and using force on them. But then you also go on to speak of men using their knowledge of “the psychology of women to bring… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Reverend Barach,

Thank you for your work in ministry with a faithful denomination. I have nothing but the highest respect for your field and work.

As an elder in the OPC, I wonder what your would counsel would be to a husband with an insubmissive wife. To ask your question, “What does this look like in practice?”

I ask, not to be a gotcha question, but to see if you would really uphold the authority of the husband in the home, as Scripture demands. Or if you would hamstring the husband into simply taking a sinful wife without response.

John Barach
Member

Kilgore, the question at hand is what Eagle Eye (who wants to voice his controversial opinions while hiding his real name, and I can well understand why) means when he speaks of “corrective discipline.” I’m still waiting to hear his answer. Turning the discussion to what *my* counsel would be in a certain situation is a distraction from that issue. Besides, there is no one answer to your question to me. If a man came to me and said, “My wife isn’t submissive,” I’d have a lot of questions for him to find out what the situation really is and… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Assume the husband is basically in the right – he’s not being unreasonable, and his wife really is. She rejects the idea that she ought to submit. What’s your next move?

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Turning the discussion to what *my* counsel would be in a certain situation is a distraction from that issue. Quite the contrary. This is a dodge. Though I have no reason to suspect you of being an egalitarian, and as a minister in the CREC, I would suspect not, this is a feminist tactic. It is a backdoor to undercutting male headship. The question is designed to see if you take seriously the unquestionably clear doctrine of male headship in the home. Do you? I agree that clarity matters deeply here. Wifely submission is mandated, but not absolute. In fact,… Read more »

John Barach
Member

Kilgore: The rather cowardly “Eagle Eye” spoke about enforcing a husband’s authority and brought up, in that connection, words like “punish” and “use of force” and “corrective discipline.” I asked him what he meant. When you, then, ask me what *I* would do, that’s distracting from the main point. I want to know if “Eagle Eye” is advocating, for instance, spanking your wife. I recognize that a whole generation or two of men saw John Wayne spanking Maureen O’Hara in a movie. They saw Prince Valiant spanking the woman he loved in the Sunday comics. I hear reports online —… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Unfortunately, generations of women also saw those movies. At best, they saw it as comical, and at worst, they internalized the idea that men show their love by treating grown women like naughty children. There is also, for some people, an erotic undercurrent that ought to be recognized candidly and not confused with Biblical teachings on submission.

John Barach
Member

In much of the discussion of “submission” I see, there seems to me to be an infantilizing of women, wives being bossed around, commanded to do this that and the other thing, wives being given an allowance which daddy … oops … the husband can cut off, wives not being allowed to do anything without asking permission, husbands deciding that the wife must lose weight, must exercise, must have food on the table at a certain time, must … I’m glad I married an adult, and I want to make sure I always treat her as an adult, giving her… Read more »

Nss
Guest
Nss

The answer is yes they will beat their wives, isn’t it? You see, they are doing God a favor when they correct their wife– even if it means beating her. They don’t trust God to touch her conscience either. Do they serve the God who was born in a stable and washed Peter’s feet? The God who speaks much against pride? No discussion ever centers on the gospel and the fact that Paul wants that to be first– he says, get along with each other so that the gospel can be preached effectively!

bdash
Guest
bdash

so basically your wives bosses you
lol
funny how men are always told to listen and asks their wife’s advice
but telling wives to ask their husbands how mich they should spend etc = infantlization.

Unless you are living under a rock, women in the west are the ones infantalizing men

bethyada
Member

A wise man listens to a wise wife, but does not obey her. Nabal would have been sensible to recognise his wife was prudent.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

Women! Can’t infantalize em, can’t let em suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Is that so bad? I mean, the sense of submission as an element of erotic love. If marital love is based on an unearthly hierarchy – in which the leader, who doesn’t deserve to be, sacrifices himself for the follower, who doesn’t deserve it – then why wouldn’t you expect that dynamic in sex as well? The sketchy appropriation of that dynamic, to which I assume you were referring, is then simply perversion by exaggeration, like a swimsuit model’s assets.

Jill Smith
Member

No, the submissive element of erotic love is not a bad thing. No one who adores the poetry of John Donne as I do could argue that. “She is all states/All princes I…Princes do but play us.” Let alone “My America, my new found land/Safeliest when with one man manned.” But that dynamic in marital sex is modified by both love and playfulness. Chase me all over the house and you can have me. It is this mutual playfulness that makes masculine sexual desire pleasing rather than frightening to women. Wooed and won, yes. Raped, no. But I think this… Read more »

John Barach
Member

I have no idea what you’re saying. “Submission as an element of erotic love”? “Marital love based on an unearthly hierarchy”? What “sketchy appropriation of that dynamic”? None of this means anything to me.

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

You’re probably not tall enough for this ride, then. Maybe you can learn something.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Good Reverend, I have the utmost respect for the position you hold and as one who will never be seminary trained, I am always quick to honor the position and the important role you play in the church. I mean this with all sincerity. But it is troubling to me that you won’t answer straight forwardly whether or not you deny the biblical teaching of male headship. You say you would rather be thought a feminist. That is absurd. Denying Scriptural precepts is far too common in your line of work, and I would be happy to think through this… Read more »

John Barach
Member

Kilgore: Once again, I entered into this forum — something I don’t usually do — only because it seemed to me that what Eagle Eye said could easily be taken to be advocating punishing wives, using force against them, psychologically manipulating them, etc. I wanted to know — and he still has never told me — what he really meant by “corrective discipline.” Your response to me was *changing the topic* from what Eagle Eye meant to what my views might be. I don’t want to change the topic. I want Eagle Eye to state clearly what he’s advocating. You… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Reverend Barach, I am actually glad you did take the time to enter this forum, despite your reticence to do so. You have a very important voice, one that true believers are commanded to value. I am sorry that you don’t want to continue this conversation, but you haven’t really engaged with me, at all, so there isn’t really much of a conversation to discontinue. You have continuously brought up other posters, but haven’t addressed me. I have answered your questions, and I have done so with specificity. But, you have refused to answer simple basic inquiries from me. I… Read more »

Jane
Member

It’s secular, feminist tactics to resist deflecting the subject and insist that the questions raised by a freely made comment be answered first?

Poisoning the well might not be a secular, feminist tactic, but it’s not a terribly commendable one, either.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

To turn a question about female insubmission into a discussion about abusive husbands is feminist tactics 101.

I didn’t deflect the subject. I stayed directly on topic. I answered his questions, in detail. He was the one who refused to answer mine. I can’t speak for Eagle Eye, so what good does it do to keep asking me about what he thinks?

Jane
Member

To ask someone to specify what he means when he recommends a course of action, when that course of action could be open to a wide variety of interpretations, some of them problematic, isn’t a “feminist tactic,” it’s a reasonable question — assuming Barnie wanted to contribute something to the discussion as an active participant, and not just be allowed to make pronouncements to be received without question.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

What I called a feminist tactic was turning a question about male headship into a discussion about domestic violence. I would be happy to direct you a million discussions by feminists about why they don’t have to submit in opposition to the bible, because bad men beat women somewhere. You are welcome to believe what you want about me, but I am not being unreasonable. I have not recommended domestic violence, I was asking about his position on male headship and he dodged. I am not speaking for Eagle Eye or Barnie or anyone other than me. I answered his… Read more »

Jane
Member

I think where we disagree is in calling this a “tactic,” and taking the idea that because this is the sort of question a feminist would ask, there is no legitimate reason to ask this question. I know you have not recommended domestic violence and I’m not imputing that attitude to you. I just dislike the idea that John’s legitimate questions are dismissed out of hand because they are the same questions a feminist might ask. If a feminist asks those questions, she’s doubtless trying to derail the conversation. If a pastor asks them, maybe he’s concerned that the matter… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Jane, I agreed with John Baruch’s very first comment, and I disagree with Eagle Eye here. But Kilgore is being honest trying to advance this debate, and I think John is now being evasive and using dishonest rhetoric.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Thank you, bethyada. I was beginning to think I was going crazy.

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Sure, it is possible that a pastor might ask further questions before committing himself.
But that is not really what JB did. He was anything but cautious in indicting other participants in the conversation, and flatly refused to engage when he was asked a question in response. Whether that is feminist behavior or not I leave to others to decide, but it is certainly poor form.

Jane
Member

Okay, rereading a bit, I think I do see your point. I was confusing the sequence of comments and what was directed at whom. The most I’ll say, though, is that it is less clear to me who was more in the wrong than I previously thought.

bethyada
Member

And we don’t know who is replying to who.

kyriosity
Member

bethyada — We need to start noting the addressee in our comments. Or quoting their posts to build in some clarity of how the thread is progressing.

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

kyriosity – Good point.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I just dislike the idea that John’s legitimate questions are dismissed out of hand because they are the same questions a feminist might ask. I answered his questions rather straight forwardly and he refused to respond in kind. That is not an honest question, that is a tactic. His question is legitimate, and I treated it as such. His refusal to uphold biblical truths makes him cowardly. His open willingness to be identified as a feminist makes his question a tactic. If a feminist asks those questions, she’s doubtless trying to derail the conversation. Agreed, but he said he didn’t… Read more »

John Barach
Member

Kilgore: I asked a question , stuck to that question when you tried to turn the subject to what my views might be, and got some answers from you but none from “Eagle Eye.” In my very first response to you in this thread, when you asked what I would counsel a husband to do if his wife was unsubmissive, I wrote: “Besides, there is no one answer to your question to me. If a man came to me and said, ‘My wife isn’t submissive,’ I’d have a lot of questions for him to find out what the situation really… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Reverend Barach, Thank you for returning to this conversation. If I in any way misconstrued what you said, I sincerely apologize. I don’t think I have, but the conversation is in public view, so we can leave it to others to decide. I did ask about your views, not as a change of topic, but because if you are egalitarian, and whether you are is a mystery at this point, then we would be operating on different working assumptions about the role of a husband and wife in marriage. I needed to know if your opposition to Eagle Eye was… Read more »

Apple
Guest
Apple

Perhaps the pastor is saying that he would check to see if the wife is being unsubmissive or responding in a way that may look unsubmissive but requires correction on the husband’s part– sort of like a dog biting when it is being abused? He said he would check individual situations and it makes sense to do that before implementing Matthew 18.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

” … then we do have a problem.”

Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever read ANYTHING that was so respectful and blistering, so charitable and so chastising, all at the same time. And straight on accurate to boot! Amazing. I have to say … amazing.

kyriosity
Member

John,

I just wanted to say thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Other than the assumption that a not-on-one’s-birth-certificate user name is cowardly (that’s a bit far-reaching), I think I’ve agreed with everything you’ve written. I’m sorry you didn’t get a straight answer to your straight questions.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

kyriosity,

He did get them from me.

kyriosity
Member

Yes, your engagement was sonewhat productive. I was thinking more of Eagle Eye, who appears to have taken a provoke-and-ditch approach to the conversation. But even you were argumentative about the questions John raised, which I don’t get. His approach seemed perfectly clear and legit to me.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Could you please identify where you think I was being argumentative?

I was trying to engage his questions. His approach was not clear, it was evasive, to me at least.

bdash
Guest
bdash

i do not even think kyriosity is a believer….
best to leave it

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Fair enough, thanks.

Jane
Member

Absolutely false. She’s never said anything to indicate that. Dislike of you does not constitute unbelief.

Jill Smith
Member

Yes, she is. Just stop that.

Eddie
Guest
Eddie

Way to run with your assumptions there. Why not just ask him what he meant and wait for an answer?

Oh, because that wouldn’t give you the chance to play white knight.

Julie Anne
Guest

The title is misleading. This article is only referring to wive’s submission to husbands. However, I notice it left out husband’s submission to wives in Ephesians 5:21.

OKRickety
Member

It also left out parents’ submission to their children. (/ sarcasm)

If, and it’s a very unlikely if, Ephesians 5:21 includes a husband submitting to his wife, why are there so many other verses saying that wives are to submit to their husband, and not even one other verse saying that husbands are to submit to their wives?

Heidi_storage
Guest
Heidi_storage

It doesn’t make much sense for mutual submission to mean that husbands ought to submit to wives, given that Paul immediately describes the marital relationship as one of wifely submission and husbandly love. After all, if marriage is a picture of Christ and His church, Christ does not submit to his church; He is and always will be its head.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“It doesn’t make much sense for mutual submission to mean that husbands ought to submit to wives, given….”

Airtight reasoning. Seamlessly rational. More importantly, BIBLICAL, all the way down (a tip of the cap to General Wilson).

Paul obviously writes in 5:21 in connection with his FOREGOING thought and not in relation to what follows.

Mark B. Hanson
Guest
Mark B. Hanson

Read point 21 again. He explains why he left that part out.

bdash
Guest
bdash

hahaha
what next Parents submit to children
Employees to Employers…
oh wait that is already happening….
“I can choose my own Gender”
Christ submits to the church…..

Sue M.
Guest
Sue M.

bdash, Although it’s not entirely reciprocal, there is a sense that: *Parents submit to their children. Within parental limits, don’t children get more say as they get older in what they wear or which movie the family should see, for example. While children should learn to eat a variety of food, isn’t wise to take their preferences into account when planning meals? Do good parents force Jimmy to play football (or keep trying out for team sports) when he’s better at tennis or running? *Employers do submit to employees. Any good manager, supervisor, or business owner realizes that his or… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

yeah but they do not reverse roles….
servant leadership in marriage is basically, expecting men to behave like godly wives….
so no
men do not submit to their wives, people who teach such nonsense should be punished

OKRickety
Member

Sue M.,

Those are not examples of the parents or the employers submitting to the children or the employees. Considering the needs of others and listening to others does not constitute submission, but instead demonstrates good leadership.

Your confusion about submission is a good example to use when explaining why there is so much resistance today to wives submitting in Christian marriages.

bdash
Guest
bdash

The resistance is due to feminism
nothing else

bethyada
Member

This is not submission.

wtrsims
Member

DW left it out because Ephesians 5:21 left it out, too.

AnonS
Guest
AnonS

Women are free at any time to become a traditional wife and raise children if they aren’t too fat. If they get the message out that 1. they want raise children and have a husband that leads the family (willing to move to where ever the man is) and 2. they want to sign a pre-nub that prevents them from robbing wealth from their husband. Men have no such option as the number of men that want traditional families far outweigh the number of such women. A women doing the above would become a social outcast in most Churches as… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Have you asked yourself why even a God-fearing woman might look at the terms you are offering and decide to pass? I am a thin woman who certainly believes that thin, to a point, is both healthy and attractive. But thinness is not so important to me that , if I were looking for a mate, lack of it would disqualify otherwise wonderful people. But, moving on, you want a not-fat woman to give up her career, have children, serve her husband, move away from friends and family to be with him (all reasonable requests so far) knowing that if… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

She is entitled hard work if she is married…. This is his sacrifice, he works for her, not himself
men served their wives in the old days by providing and protecting, decent women loved this and looked after family life for them.
now men are expected to work and run the home to serve their wife who has her own career or sits on facebook

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Baloney. Women face pressures and difficulties in marriage, too. And pre-nuptial agreements are absurd. If you feel you need a pre-nup with your intended, you aren’t ready to marry her.

bdash
Guest
bdash

Make the divorce laws harder then say prenups are not needed.
as long as women are influenced by the feminist ways of the world and the feminist wolves in the church , any man with a brain would sign a prenup

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

It’s a category error to blame problems in Christian marriage on divorce laws. If you can’t tell whether your fiancee is a feminist, you should probably try talking to her instead of lawyering up.

bdash
Guest
bdash

Women are easily influenced…
No sympathy for men who cry about being cheated by a wife when they never signed a prenup…

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

Yes, they are. If you are married, your wife should be chiefly influenced – led, as we say in Christian circles – by you!

I have loads of sympathy for a Christian man who is cheated, or abandoned by his wife. That’s terrible. But, should he decide to marry knowing virtually nothing about his wife or how she thinks or her willingness to follow his leadership, then he is being an idiot.

bdash
Guest
bdash

women change

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

I see your point, but you go too far when you say that divorce laws can’t be blamed for problems in Christian marriages. There is some culpability. When the ability to sin against a husband is given impunity, the sinful heart is tempted. When the state promises to make the husband still act like a husband when the wife no longer has to uphold their end of the bargain, then we do have a legitimate claim against the divorce laws.

Apple
Guest
Apple

What? Women can be ordered to pay monthly support to men too.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

While technically true, the application is totally lopsided against men. More than 80% of the time, the children are placed in to the custody of their mothers, and many of these are even given over the objections of the mothers themselves.

18.3 percent of custodial parents in 2011 were fathers, according to the latest numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-moms-less-likely-than-dads-to-pay-child-support/

Plus,

32 percent of custodial fathers didn’t receive any of the child support that had been awarded to them

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

YET, you tell the wives of folks like Chesterton & Tolkien NOT to submit?
Not to follow GK or JRR into the sanctuary?

Rick Davis
Guest

Because no human authority is ultimate. Any time a husband commands his wife to do what God forbids or forbids his wife from doing what God commands, then the wife ought to obey God rather than her husband.

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

Let’s put it another way.
Doug quips : (paraphrased) “If Chesterton & Tolkien weren’t Christians, I’m then worried about myself.”
Yet he hints his church would have to excommunicate the likes of them for “bowing to idols” and asking their wives to submit to doing the same.

I’m just making a friendly jab here that Doug (love him) needs to rethink his EO & RC apostasy stance, and that wives should not submit to husbands like Chesterton.

Jane
Member

Because Christians can commit acts of sin and folly that they cannot rightfully compel others, even those under their authority, to join them in.

I don’t really see the conundrum here.

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

Just wanting you to ask yourself, “How is it that folks so Christian as Tolkein could be doing something so sinful as supposed idol worship?”

Maybe the conundrum is that what we so quickly label such, ain’t what we thought.
(Not that we must then approve it. But shan’t we at least give pause before the saintliness of those fellas?)

Jane
Member

I don’t find “How is it that those who are evidently Christian can do something so very sinful” to be a puzzling question, so your rejoinder lacks persuasive force. The most saintly have their flaws and blindspots.

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

I’m unsure if we should be excommunicating our most saintly brothers because of their blindspots.

Your calling idolatry a flaw or blindspot is exactly where I should have gone.

I’m asking Doug to reconsider his stance that husbands who ask their wives to submit in going with them into the EO church, for example, may be making a mistake, but not leading them into idolatry — a bit of a flaw, for sure.

Jane
Member

They aren’t excommunicated for idolatry, they’re excommunicated for leaving the church. It’s not even an action, it’s a recognition.

The churches in question are either churches or they aren’t. That might be a matter for debate, but as long as the belief is held that those are not churches, then leaving a church to join them has only one possible logical response, no matter how highly you might think of the people performing that action.

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

So if a husband wants his family to attend St. Mary’s Eastern Orthodox Church — and we all agree that it is a church — why would we say to that wife to NOT SUBMIT to going into the doors of this church, because they pray to the saints there?

Eric Stampher
Guest
Eric Stampher

A wife need not convert if her conscience so bind here, but to “just flatly refuse to go with him to church” is a bit much.

And to oppose their child’s baptism in the EO church is bizarre, unless you hold these saints aren’t in the church at all — which in the least begs further explanation.

kyriosity
Member

For the record, folks who go RC or EO are not excommunicated from Christ Church, but neither are they released from membership without admonishment and remonstration.

The fact is, they are the ones excommunicating us. They no longer recognize our observation of the Lord’s Supper as valid.

Joey Wells
Guest
Joey Wells

Yep. CS Lewis and GK Chesterton: every presbyterian’s favorite catholics.

And I know that Lewis was always Anglican, but if his adoring Calvinist fans visited his church they would no doubt leave shaking their heads and saying “that church is just too x,” where x does not equal “reformed.”

bdash
Guest
bdash

Who decides what God forbids?

is it based on the wife’s “tingles”

In fact Paul or Peter never give commands to submit and then a list of exceptions
only modern preachers do so

Jill Smith
Member

“Tingles”?

Have you never met an intelligent Christian woman with a conscience as biblically formed and mature as your own? A woman old enough to get married ought to have no trouble in recognizing a proposed course of action as moral or sinful.

bdash
Guest
bdash

yes, plenty!
but most supposed Christians derive their theology from mass media and NOT the bible
many for example believe that being a godly supportive wife is sinful and contributing to the “patriarchy” so really women use this supposed exception to basically never submit at all
so do men by the way…

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Jill,

I wouldn’t feed the trolls. He is not driven by biblical mandates. He uses them for his own desires.

bdash
Guest
bdash

what arev these desires?
in todays age where right is wrong and wrong is right a woman can give any excuse to be unsumissive

Jill Smith
Member

I know you are right, and sometimes I can’t resist!

bdash
Guest
bdash

awww someone challenged your feminist worldview, poor child

Jill Smith
Member

I disagree with 99% of what you say, but anyone who calls this old lady “child” can be my friend.

bethyada
Member

Peter gives an exception for obeying the state.

So do you think a wife has to obey her husband into sin?

bdash
Guest
bdash

what a husband may see as Godly a wife may see as sin…..

bethyada
Member

true. But I was pointing out that there are exceptions.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“The Bible requires women to be submissive to their own husbands….” Yes, but the Bible also requires women to be submissive in the church. You know that. And the hair raising, blood curdling, totally offensive and completely unacceptable apostolic imperative associated with that female submission is silence. “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Good points all. #1. Yes and no. Some concepts are obvious, but others less so or more subtle. Some disagreement is because men misuse Scripture to justify their own sin, but some is due to less that clear teaching. Many have approached the divorce question trying to understand what the situation is and come to a variety of different conclusions. I think your interpretation of “desire” in Genesis is correct but that has not universally been the understanding. So for the some doctrine on the sexes the Bible is perspicuous, for others not as clear. #3. I would say it… Read more »

Jane
Member

Excellent point on #7. Though in many areas, there are exceptional cases, most people want the exception to be recognized because they believe themselves to be it. And if everyone’s exceptional, then no one is.

bethyada
Member

Just to raise a potentially contentious question.

#8. One could argue that until a woman sees that submission does not mean unequal she is not fit to be in authority. If a woman thinking like this gains authority she is in authority over others she thinks are inferior to her.

Jill Smith
Member

I agree with you. But you are going to have uphill work convincing others of that when, even here, we are seeing comments about the social (let alone spiritual) inferiority of women, the parallel between wives, children, and slaves, and the right/duty of husbands to correct their wives.

My Portion Forever
Member

Agreed.
P. Wilson was right that a husband can’t “make” his wife submit. That turns into conflict and oppressive behavior and cuts off intimacy. Though he can help by taking initiative in leading. It is tempting for us women to step in when there is a perceived void in leadership.
But the instructions God gave to both husbands and wives should be followed to the best of our ability even when our spouses aren’t living up to “their end of the deal.” That is Christ-likeness.

bdash
Guest
bdash

don’t claim men are the authority or heads or bear the responsibility in marriage when they cannot even make their wives do anything….

Jane
Member

This is the root of much of the feminist complaining within the church. They argue that authority/submission is unfair because it’s not fair that one gets to boss the other around. And as long as that’s their understanding of authority, they should not be allowed anywhere near it, even in the spheres in which they’re permitted to have it (e.g. motherhood, leadership among women.)

MeMe
Guest

Wrong. As long as there are men in the world proving feminists right, such MEN should not be allowed anywhere near authority.

Jane
Member

How does that make what I said wrong? People who are clueless about what authority is shouldn’t have it. I like how when I say something you agree with in principle, you find a way to call me wrong anyway, because I didn’t say it the way you would have.

MeMe
Guest

“I like how when I say something you agree with in principle, you find a way to call me wrong anyway, because I didn’t say it the way you would have.” Most of the time, I don’t even agree with you in principle. That’s not a statement intended to sound unkind, it is simply that you fail to see outright abuse of women even when it’s happening right in front of you. That makes you someone I don’t trust at all. Your comment is simply more evidence of this. There are trolls here actually advocating domestic violence and your primary… Read more »

bethyada
Member

It is not her primary concern. I responded to one of Doug’s items and Jane responded to my response. I think what she said is perfectly truthful.

MeMe
Guest

I have seen the dead women and children vicitimized by men’s violence, Bethyada. If such things are not one’s primary concern,than one is simply wrong.

Jill Smith
Member

MeMe, I think you are not being fair. Yes, there are a few trolls here but how do you know that Jane has even read them? Perhaps she has read them, and decided that any reply merely eggs them on. Perhaps she sees their comments as having a prurient undertone she does not want to encourage. Perhaps she knows that there is no point in engaging with men who not so secretly yearn for the days when you could smack your wife with impunity. Whatever her reasons, she has said nothing–now or in the past–to suggest that she is indifferent… Read more »

Jane
Member

Paragraph #1 — no perhaps about it. That’s exactly why I mostly don’t engage with those people.

Jane
Member

No, that was NOT my primary concern. My primary concern was that people who don’t understand what authority is, should not have authority.

You remain biased against everything I write based on an uncharitable misconception about what I think and what I recognize. I no longer initiate engagement with you, but when you misread my comments and put them into a false light, I will respond. So it’s your choice — stop replying to my comments, start doing it with some degree of charity, or put up with it when I tell you you’re misrepresenting me.

MeMe
Guest

I am not misrespresenting you. You flat out turn
a blind eye to the actual abuse that women and children suffer. I have no idea why but it is what it is.

Jane
Member

No, I don’t. I don’t know how you could possibly know that was true even if it were the case, because you don’t know me in real life and know what I have seen and have affirmed or denied.

And I have certainly never denied the actual abuse that women and children suffer, here, or any place that you could search and find. Until you find a place where I have done that, the charge of misrepresentation stands.

At any rate, I see that you have chosen to continue to bring the charge of misrepresentation upon yourself. So be it.

Jill Smith
Member

That is a pretty nasty allegation. Do you have one shred of evidence to back that up?

And I could say that you kick cats when no one is looking. Would it be right for me to say that when I have no proof or even any reason to believe that it is true?

OKRickety
Member

MeMe,

“I am not misrespresenting you. You flat out turn
a blind eye to the actual abuse that women and children suffer. I have no idea why but it is what it is.”

Silence is not proof of one’s position.

Why do you insist that you know what others really mean, interpreting their words (or silence) according to your imaginary superpower of discernment?

Jane
Member

BTW, I don’t know the source of this obsession with reading motives into what I both say and don’t say, much less insisting that in my heart I mean the opposite of what I say, but I will not let the threat of ME’s bitter and baseless chastisements silence me, though no doubt that is part of her agenda.

Jill Smith
Member

I should hope that you won’t! I have noticed that when ME feels passionate about something, even viewpoints similar to her own get raked over the coals if they are not expressed in the words she herself would use. But she is much too quick to jump to uncharitable conclusions. I am sure her feelings are very real to her, but her feelings are not evidence about people’s characters and motives.

OKRickety
Member

MeMe,

“That’s not a statement intended to sound unkind, it is simply that you fail to see outright abuse of women even when it’s happening right in front of you.”

That is your opinion, not proven fact. In my opinion, and this is not intended to sound unkind, you manage to see outright abuse of women even when it is not happening. Of course, I don’t trust you. Your comment ably demonstrates why. You denigrate Jane because she commented here on women and authority rather than shrieking about domestic violence.

MeMe
Guest

I do not denigrate Jane, nor do I falsely perceive what domestic violence is. In this very thread people are attempting to claim the bible and submission allows them to physically discipline their wives. That’s called domestic violence. Anyone who cannot see that as ABUSE is a bloody moron, including you.

Jane
Member

Who is disagreeing that it is abuse? Of course it is. Anyone who thinks that because person A said something, person B is doesn’t see it for what it is, for absolutely no reason, is either extremely confused or not entirely honest.

OKRickety
Member

MeMe,

You insist on interpreting other’s words in the worst possible fashion, especially if it can possibly be construed that they are condoning or promoting abuse of any kind.

In spite of your vehement denial, it is clearly obvious that you denigrated Jane. Denigrate is defined as “criticize unfairly; disparage”.

I’d really like to see how the men you respect would respond to your comments on this thread. However, I think it is reasonable to suppose that they will never see them.

bdash
Guest
bdash

who is proving feminists right?
heir desire to destroy their family is SATANIC

what next, as long as people die from Natural disasters, proving SATAN as right we should not believe in God?
sigh…

Farinata degli Uberti
Guest
Farinata degli Uberti

A very apt pt.

bethyada
Member

On enforcement 11. The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example. 12. The fact that husbands cannot mandate or manufacture this does not make it any less mandatory. Wives are to be submissive to their own husbands in everything. The marriage service rightly includes a vow for… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

where in the bible does it say that men are not allowed to teach their wives??

bethyada
Member

Men are allowed to teach their wives.

Sue M.
Guest
Sue M.

And where in the Bible does it say that a woman cannot teach her own husband, particularly in the privacy of their home?

bdash
Guest
bdash

no one was disputing that?!

bethyada
Member

Men are allowed to learn from their wives.

(Sue, I was replying to bdash who implied thatI thought men were not allowed to teach their wives).

bdash
Guest
bdash

U EVER had a teacher?

bethyada
Member

yes. The relevance being?

bdash
Guest
bdash

This is so true
Women in the west decided that men were evil and the bible is wrong- this has resulted in Evil men taking over not women….

afaik no sympathy for western women that get exploited by Islam, they chose to usurp their men, EVIL men are liking their lips

bdash
Guest
bdash

I love how Christians teach that Men are the leaders and Authority of the homes , yet these strong leaders are not allowed to tell their wives to submit or listen or obey them…

some Authority….

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

bdash, just as a point of curiosity, if a wife refuses to submit or listen or obey, what recourse does a husband have? If your wife — I assume you’re male — refused to submit to you, how would you handle it?

bdash
Guest
bdash

A woman who refuses to submit is refusing to be a wife- so she basically is asking for a divorce, not submitting is only possible if she is not married.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

But I thought the Bible only allowed divorce in the case of adultery?

bdash
Guest
bdash

have you been to any church in 2017?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

But we’re not talking about what churches do; we’re talking about what the Bible teaches. And I don’t see how you can have it both ways. If you’re going to demand Biblical teaching on wives submitting to their husbands, then you are stuck with Biblical teaching on divorce.

bdash
Guest
bdash

EXACTLY
so a wife that refuses to submit is basically asking fro divorce, she needs to be disciplined by the church

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

And if she refuses to go to that church anyway? It’s hard for me to understand why a woman who doesn’t believe in submitting to her husband would be willing to attend a church that teaches that, so in many cases I’d think she wouldn’t be part of his church anyway.

bdash
Guest
bdash

then the marriage is totally screwed….
what kind of people are these that marry women that refuse to follow them.
oh wait I can guess
Because Jesus washed people’s feet it means husbands are to submit to every whim and fancy that the women want to show servant leadership….

what next Jesus should have followed the disciples instead of telling them to follow him?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I don’t think husbands submitting to every whim and fancy of their wives, or wives being submissive as you seem to understand the term, are the only two options. But at any rate, your answer to my original question would seem to be that as a practical matter, if a wife refuses to submit, the husband has few practical options?

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

Yep. And God commands that you honor your father and mother so that you don’t have to honor any other elders. In fact, dishonoring your elders shows how much you value the fifth commandment.

bethyada
Member

One honours elders in their position as elders. Children are to obey their parents, they are not commanded to obey everyone else’s parents.

Jill Smith
Member

If I understand you correctly, every woman owes a meek and submissive demeanor to every man who crosses her path? The gardener who is planting rhubarb where he was instructed to plant roses? The guy next to her on an airplane who makes a suggestive comment about her curves? The men in the press gallery who are pressing Kellyanne Conway for information? The defendant facing a woman judge? The homeless man on my corner who has some rather repellent ideas about how we could spend a pleasurable afternoon?

bdash
Guest
bdash

yes, Paul expected wives of unbelieving men to be meek and submissive as well…
IDK if you know your history, but men of Paul’s time were not decent….
Women do not realize how much power they have, they become so weak when they try to become men

bdash
Guest
bdash

yeah it is hilarious when christian preachers say, she just obeys her husband, she can behave full feminazi towards other men and confront them and show no respect….
lol

Jill Smith
Member

In an ideal world in which everyone is trying to demonstrate Christian virtue, the question of which gender should show more respect would never arise. You would be gentle and courteous in all your dealings with women, and they would be courteous and mild-mannered with you. You would be protective of women because they are physically weaker, and they would respond gratefully to your chivalry. If you see them as spiritually weaker than men, you would make allowances for their infirmities and guide them gently. They, seeing your kindly intentions, would respond politely, even if they disagreed. We are so… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

if u want chivalry back, end the desire women gave to be, behave and ACT like men. cause that is when chivalry stopped

Jill Smith
Member

Well, it begins with individuals who decide to be courteous and chivalrous no matter what anyone around them chooses to do. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I have been treated very courteously by most of the men with whom I have contact.

bdash
Guest
bdash

Yes you are correct
but younger men do not see it that way

Jane
Member

So do you not let your life go out in public or answer the phone, or do you expect her to respond to every sales pitch she encounters made by a man? If she has to submit to every man, she’d have to do that.

Equivocating between “dishonoring” and “not submitting” wins the game easily, but it’s egregious cheating.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“Men and women stand on level ground when it comes to being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27)” Yes, but what about 1 Cor 11:7? “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” There is a basic distinction asserted in that text, a distinction not one man in ten million wants to see. So it’s not there, in one sense. But sit with it for a moment. Careful though. You’re staring an assertion of “inequality” right in the face. Then there is… Read more »

Sue M.
Guest
Sue M.

One question: Would you be so gung ho about this if you were a woman? (BTW, not all theologians interpret this passage as you do.)

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

Trust me. There are a great many things that God has ordained which I am not “gung ho” about. If you hated God for what He has written and ordained, I would understand. That hatred would not alter one syllable of what He has written or one fraction of what He has ordained, but I know the state of mind quite well, I’m sorry to say.

God be merciful to me, the sinner.

bdash
Guest
bdash

The women around me are mo GUNG HO about this than the men. in fact Godly mothers tend to teach their sons a lot….

Women that love God do not get annoyed by tiny issues like this

Jill Smith
Member

Kevin, are you saying then that a woman’s duty of submission in marriage is based on her inferiority? If Christ is superior to any man in dignity, rank, and glory, then any man is superior to any woman? On this reasoning, Cedric the Swineherd is superior in rank and glory to Queen Elizabeth I, or are you meaning superior only in religious as opposed to a worldly sense? I am struggling a bit with the premise of your analogy because I have been so firmly instructed that the Persons of the Trinity are co-equal. But, granting your premise, the vast… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“I am struggling a bit with the premise of your analogy….” It’s not my analogy, Jill. It belongs to the apostle Paul. “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Cor 11:3 The three assertions all stand or fall together. If you allow no sense in which Christ, the Word made flesh, is inferior to God the Father, then neither can you allow that man is inferior to Christ. And that’s absurd, I’m sure you will agree. The… Read more »

My Portion Forever
Member

Kevin, thanks for being humble and willing to discuss this. I hear where you’re coming from, and appreciate the willingness to follow the Scriptures wherever they lead. I have a different view on this passage for you to consider. 1) I assume that having authority over someone does not in and of itself make one inherently superior to that person. We see this all the time in the work world or the government (i.e. masters and slaves). Even parents, who are superior to children in knowledge and maturity, are not superior to them forever, so you might say not ontologically.… Read more »

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

” … follow the Scriptures wherever they lead.” Well, that is the aim, Portion Forever. I don’t think your argument, plausible as it is on the surface, actually works in the context of the entire chapter (1 Cor 11). For instance, look at 11:7 – “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” Man is the glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. That is a baldly stated ontological distinction, taken with the whole of the apostle’s argument in the chapter.… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Kevin, what My Portion Forever sums up my interpretation and says it better than I could.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“How do you reconcile your view with Galatians 3:28?” Background: The devout Jew offers a morning prayer thanking the King of the universe that he was not made a Gentile, a woman or a slave. In addition, Gentiles and women were essentially “quarantined” in the Jewish temple. Their approach to the Holy Presence met with greater restrictions than that of the common Jewish man. So in Gal 3:28, Paul is responding to this background in light of the Gospel. In Christ, women now share equally and fully in God with men. There is perfect equality at the Throne of Grace… Read more »

Ginny Yeager
Guest
Ginny Yeager

The painting is so beautiful. What do you suppose she is thinking?

bethyada
Member

Yet another proposal from a peasant without a job.

Yes it is beautiful: Woman in White Holding Irises – Conrad Kiesel.

kyriosity
Member

But…but…she’s in GREEN. ????

Jane
Member

Time for a new monitor?

kyriosity
Member

I’m seeing it on my phone. I’ll have to check it out on my work computer today. For now, I see a white collar, a dress with a pale green background, and a gold sash.

kyriosity
Member

Checked on two other monitors. Still looks pale green to me. I get that it’s a satiny fabric, and so the shadows reflect the colors around (in this case the green of the garden), but I think the artist overdid it if he wanted it to appear white, especially next to the nonreflective white of the collar.

Jane
Member

I figured that’s what you were seeing, but when I look at it on my screen, I see a cream colored dress with a yellow floral print, a gold sash, and a green background. The green is definitely not in the dress, though the strong greens in the background could give an impression of greenness in it.

OKRickety
Member

And now it’s time to argue about the color of a dress? I thought the internet had already had its quota on that topic. :)

Jill Smith
Member

Bethyada, is there a way to identify an unknown painting using Google search?

bethyada
Member

I copied the picture into tineye and searched.

kyriosity
Member

Jilly — images.google.com. Drag and drop the image.

Jane
Member

Simpler still — right click and “view image.” In this case, the name and artist are in the URL!

bethyada
Member

True with my image, not true with Doug’s

kyriosity
Member

I was teaching Jill to fish, not just feeding her for the day. ;^)

Jill Smith
Member

Don’t like fish; can you teach me to make tofu?

kyriosity
Member

Yes!

1. Open a package of tofu.
2. Throw it in the garbage.
3. Eat something decent. ;^D

Dave
Guest
Dave

Thank you Kyuriosity! Down with tofu!

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Why you gotta hate? :)

bethyada
Member

comment image

bethyada
Member

Just seeing how comments post images

wtrsims
Member

Right click the image and choose “Search Google for image”

kyriosity
Member

wtrsims — I’m guessing that trick works only in Chrome.

Ginny Yeager
Guest
Ginny Yeager

Too funny. Let’s get some memes going. I could use some laughs today.

wisdumb
Guest
wisdumb

Submission is unavoidable and usually agreed to for protection. Modern feminists run to the state for protection, willing to yield all their independence for a pot of protection. Marital submission, like all of God’s law, is the least oppressive form available to humans; we just don’t like Who we are to be submitted to.

Bro. Steve
Guest
Bro. Steve

Sometimes men can more capable of proper submission than some women. Take a team A-list players led by a high octane manager, and they will produce victory. A-list players are not jealous of the manager’s job. On a good team, nobody is bitter and resentful against the manager’s hetero-normative while male patriarchal whatever-phobic oppression. He does his job of managing, inspiring, and leading. And precisely because they are A-list players, they do what they do best under his leadership, and they work, produce, excel, win. And they like it. Christendom needs to recover the idea that women can be A-list… Read more »

Ginny Yeager
Guest
Ginny Yeager

Along those lines, I always think of Vasily on “The Hunt for Red October” as the perfect 2nd in command (except he dies :(

Jill Smith
Member

You make a point I have often thought about. Men appear to have an inbuilt sense of hierarchy that many women lack. I often saw this in the workplace where men functioned much better as team players. They also took direction much better. I think this has probably changed somewhat as women have learned to put aside silliness like “I’m mad because the boss didn’t say thank you.” I have wondered if greater exposure to team sports will help women overcome this problem, or if it is truly innate in a lot of women.

adad0
Member

49 ers, no.

Patriots, yes!

????

Josh
Guest
Josh

This is likely due to the male makeup. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/attraction-evolved/201707/does-testosterone-really-just-make-men-aggressive

Men, particularly high testosterone men, understand hierarchy, and strategy, and submit/rule as needed within the hierarchy. This is why male run companies are successful, and female run companies are not. Female only companies tend to crash and burn spectacularly. Male only companies create civilization.

bdash
Guest
bdash

NO JOSH, that in sinful, even though GOD created us that way we should castrate ourselves as that is not showing SERVICE!!
I do not think Jesus would be a good husband for these women either, his misogynistic ways (12 key male disciples) and expectation that men need to look after women ( telling John to take care of his Mother) is evidence of his SELF SERVING MALE chauvinist attitude…

OKRickety
Member

“I have wondered if greater exposure to team sports will help women overcome this problem, or if it is truly innate in a lot of women.”

We’ve had more than 40 years of Title IX legislation. I would think that would be adequate time for team sports exposure for women to overcome the problem, so I rather think that the latter is quite likely.

Matt
Guest
Matt

“The teaching of Scripture on this subject is perspicuous and plain.”

This is the first sentence to a 3000 word post throwing out various qualifications and exceptions, followed by a hundred comments arguing over even more qualifications and exceptions. “Submit to all men” is plain, what you are doing here is not.

adad0
Member

Matt, “do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was pretty plain as well!????
Then look what happened!
What is God “doing” with His Revelation in The Word?????

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Matt,

I hope you know how silly this sounds.

The laws regarding murder in the US are also pretty clear, but we have an entire industry surrounding how to properly understand them. This is the simply the nature of applying given rules to real life.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Murder laws are distinct mostly on intent, which is what all the lawyering focuses on. But no one disagrees on what the law actually says. Contrast with here, where beyond that women are to submit to someone, no one actually has a clear idea of anything.

And make that 250 comments now arguing over various qualifications and exceptions.

bdash
Guest
bdash

I would guess that 150 years ago no one would have debated these verses but other ones…

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Justifiable Homicide is a hotly debate topic. That is what a lot of the lawyering is about, is this instance of killing someone actually a murder. The clarity of a law always gets muddy when put into practice. The rules about submission are no different.

I was a plumber for three decades and there are hotly debated rules about what qualifies as a legal water shut-off valve. Don’t draw too many conclusions about the clarity of submission by people arguing against.

Igraine the Brave
Guest
Igraine the Brave

I find it strange that only point 8 has any scriptural backing. Can we see this again with the relevant scriptural support?

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

Husbands are nowhere commanded or instructed to regulate their wives by instructions or commands, so the entire center of your argument is completely blank.

bdash
Guest
bdash

Christ gave the church a lot of commands….
wives are told to submit and obey, what does a humans submit and obey to, commands

this is basic…
most men are lazy though and let their wives rule over them

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

“At the same time, in a healthy society, if wives are generally submissive to their own husbands, there will be a cheerful deference to the leadership of men generally, a reality to be welcomed and not resented.” Why should that be the case? You’ve told us that men and women are equals, why shouldn’t they behave as such? You’ve shown with #5 that submission is repugnant and should be tolerated towards one man as a price to be paid to maximize autonomy. Funny that you seem to be using egalitarianism and autonomy to try to bait women into some semblance… Read more »

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

If women in traditional societies act in “cheerful deference” towards the leadership of men it is because those societies indoctrinate and enforce those social roles including with violence. The fact that patriarchal societies function so similarly across a wide range of geographic and historical contexts show that they are not the product of revealed scriptural wisdom or dictate. They are evolved social technologies. Women may not be in submission to one man but with an attitude of rebellion towards mankind because it breeds contempt for her husband but more importantly because it will result in violence between men and on… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

So, patriarchy, as you define it, is not the revealed will of God but has evolved across cultures as something that breeds social cohesion among men and good conduct among women. If that is so, why should the dictates of secular patriarchy have anything useful to teach us about Christian marriage? If the premises underlying Christian marriage are true (the equality of souls before God, the union of two consenting people as one flesh, the sacrificial love of one and the loving submission of the other), why would we want to import pagan views of women as soulless inferiors who… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Why would you want your wife or daughters to be submissive to men other than their husbands?

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

Because I understand the benefits of patriarchy.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

And I teach my daughter about the necessity of patriarchy so I don’t have try to pull the sort of bait and switch that Wilson is trying here. Patriarchy for one household is fine. I encourage every man to have a go at it but if patriarchy is limited to the nuclear family then you will have no functional social unit larger than a nuclear family.

bethyada
Member

So you encourage your wife to submit to every other man in a way that she does not submit to women and in a way that you do not submit to other men?

How does that look in practice?

Jill Smith
Member

Perhaps like Saudi Arabia? If you keep the women in harems and only let them outside with a male relative, you don’t have to worry about them submitting to the wrong man.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

You chose to leave your community and live in an urban environment among people of many different races and cultures and marry a man of a different tribe. It’s a situation where you can have no understanding of the motivations of the people around you, where you don’t know what mores determine their behavior and you can’t clearly determine their social cues and where people move and act in anonymity . You don’t even know what the men in the bus seat behind you are saying. Then you complain that you can’t trust the men around you. You chose to… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Barnie, Jill has not said anything on this blog over the years to imply that she was not submissive to her husband. I do not know the situation so cannot apportion the blame, but regardless of Jill’s culpability (or not), your accusation is baseless.

Nor has anything she said implied that her daughter’s trip was a sex tourism trip.

You do not need to slander people to win an argument.

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

Which shows that submission to one man has limited utility in preventing social harms when compared to a tiered submission that extends to a community of males.

Jill Smith
Member

I recognize your unwillingness to find anything good to say about Israelis, and probably Jews in general, but you are under a misapprehension about the Birthright Israel trip.  Far from resembling a group of white American men traveling to Phuket to have sex with children, Birthright is a fully chaperoned trip for young people who want to connect with their Jewish roots.  Do you imagine that my daughter used the darkness of the Children’s Holocaust Museum to engage in illicit sex with people she hardly knew?  Or desecrated the sanctity of the military cemetery?  Do you think she propositioned Mr.… Read more »

kyriosity
Member

Jilly, I’d just like to say for the record that you get the prize for the sweetest regular commenter on this blog. You’re not the lady I agree with most (that’d be Jane, of course), but your demeanor is most persistently patient and gracious, and I deeply appreciate that. I’m sorry that you were subjected to Barnie’s vile comments. You do not deserve such slander, nor does the Snowflake. Barnie needs to repent before he has to defend his words on judgment day.

Jill Smith
Member

Thank you! That made my day!

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

Pick up a book. If you want the hardcore stuff make it the Bible.

Eddie
Guest
Eddie

“The liberation of women was a false flag operation. The true goal was the liberation of libertine men …. These were men who wanted the benefits for themselves that would come from easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture. ” I’m sorry, but this is wishful thinking. The reality is that it was libertine men AND WOMEN who wanted the easy divorce, widespread abortion, promiscuous dating culture. The porn was 90% men, I’ll grant you … but I’d also suggest that that was an outgrowth or extension of the promiscuous dating culture, which is very unevenly… Read more »

MeMe
Guest

This is quite lovely. I have no objections.

MeMe
Guest

Of course, my approval came before I read the comments. Now I am submitting to the fact that there are some men who just need to be pushed off a cliff.

lndighost
Member

There are some terribly broken men here. But take heart. Either they will be washed in the blood of the Lamb and cleansed from their sin just as we are, or they will receive justice at the hands of the Patriarch Himself.

bdash
Guest
bdash

MEME just called for murder,. Be careful when you call for the Patriarch

Barnie
Guest
Barnie

So a man cannot use violence to enforce his will upon his wife. This in spite of the fact that Christ used violence to enforce his will upon the money changers and promises to use mind boggling violence upon his return. A man, who presumably knows and loves his wife more than anyone else in the world does, may not be permitted the use of physical punishment to modify the behavior of his wife. Presumably the State is the better agent to modify the behavior of the wife or perhaps we should conclude that her behavior should never require modification.… Read more »

MeMe
Guest

Dalrock is a red pill, a cultian who engages in quite a bit of heresy and blasphemy. It’s tragic that such men teach falsely and mislead other broken men. By their fruits you shall know them. Dalrock’s fruits are rotten.

Stat
Guest
Stat

Please provide the links to the heresy and blasphemy you reference from Dalrock – I’d be quite keen to see these things demonstrated.

OKRickety
Member

She won’t. She’s been asked to before, but she either ignores or refuses the request. If it is so blatantly true, I would think she would easily provide a couple of examples. Thus far, she has provided no evidence.

OKRickety
Member

Stat,

Well, MeMe did provide some links. Please read them (and the links to Dalrock’s blog they contain) and provide your response to the “heresy and blasphemy” you find. I’d also be interested in anyone else’s response to them, too.

Stat
Guest
Stat

MeMe provided three links to someone other than Dalrock. None of those three posts provide a quote from Dalrock that is heretical or blasphemous. None of these three posts even clearly posit the *opinion* that Dalrock is heretical or blasphemous – you’d have to draw your own conclusion because it is not expressly stated. And all three of those posts quote almost nothing at all directly from Dalrock other than a title or phrase – none of which I can see as evidence of heresy or blasphemy. Incidentally, all three of those posts quote almost nothing from scripture directly either… Read more »

OKRickety
Member

Stat, Those links are links to MeMe’s blog. In each of those posts, she provides the link to a post on Dalrock’s blog that she apparently considers to contain material that is heretical or blasphemous. I agree that these three blog posts of hers do not provide direct claims of heresy or blasphemy. So, you might revisit her links and from them go to the posts on Dalrock’s blog to see if you find any evidence of heresy or blasphemy in his posts. I rather think it would be a wild goose chase. Based on what you have seen of MeMe’s… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

you just asked for men to be pushed off a cliff, check your own Fruits
Dalrock has never called for murder…
and since you accused, provide evidence, else shut up , you are not doing any favors for your Gender with accusations of false teaching with NO evidence.

Proving that women are ruled by tingles and not facts

Nss
Guest
Nss

So throw out Deuteronomy 21:10-14 that says a man cannot treat his wife as a slave. And remember– the best part is yet to come for women because Jesus said the first shall be last and those in authority are not to lord it over others. So beat your wife– but you are going to be last in heaven.

bdash
Guest
bdash

so will Jesus be last?

demosthenes1d
Member

Barnie,

I am not convinced that physical punishment or discipline must never be used in marriage (though I think it would represent a radical breakdown of order). However, your conclusions don’t follow your stated premise. You are assuming several other premises that are unstated, which leads all of your conclusions to be non-sequiturs.

Lori
Guest
Lori

If a woman is refusing to submit to her husband, she is in sin. Her husband of course has recourse: the process laid out in Matthew 18. He speaks to her about her sin. If she doesn’t repent, he brings in a couple of other, trust people who have some insight into what is going on, to see if they can help her to see her sin. If that doesn’t do it, he takes the matter to the church leaders, who have the authority to discipline her. So, yes, there is the authority to discipline a wife who refuses to… Read more »

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

It’s easy for a certain kind of man to read Ephesians 5:21-24 and rub his hands together, gleefully chortling that this is describing a unilateral duty, expected of the wife alone, to lay down her life for him, so that he could be served continually and be nothing but pleased, honored, and satisfied at all times. It is automatic for such a man to suppose that the Apostle will next assign to him a corollary and kingly position of great power, a power to command and regulate his subservient according to his own will and desires. To a certain kind… Read more »

MeMe
Guest

Amen! Thank you.

OKRickety
Member

Valerie,

An impressive-looking essay. When I have the time, perhaps I’ll find it interesting. For now though: TL:DR (Too long, didn’t read).

I’ve now read it. I think it was excessive effort to berate “some men”, suggesting that you have too much time on your hands.

bdash
Guest
bdash

this is hilarious both men and women get benefits from marriage and the bible acknowledges that, all you want is some weird Matriarchal relationship where the wife does nothing. Jesus was still the leader, and he instructed the Church, he never followed the church or submitted to the church It is also funny how you expect men to be perfect like christ , but women can do whatever they want A man that provides, protects, works hard, studies the bible is sacrificing- A Godly wife would not expect any more, but most do because most Godly wives want wives themselves.… Read more »

kyriosity
Member

For those who generally agree with the following definitions, would you suggest any improvements in the wording?

Biblical Patriarchy: Qualified men, themselves in submission to God, exercise authority with sacrificial strength in the home, the church, and the civil sphere.

Unbiblical Patrianarchy: Any man with any character and any demeanor exercises authority with self-serving strength anywhere.

Valerie Jacobsen
Member

It was for sound, biblical reasons that the Reformation did not merely advocate for the election of kinder, gentler priests and bishops. And wherever those same principles have been applied to the civil sphere, no tyrant who promised kindness could remain standing. Those who complain most about comprehensive regulation in church and state tend–at this point in history–to be least consistent in their philosophy of leadership in the home and in their expectation of which standard it should apply.

bdash
Guest
bdash

depends, most modern versions of sacrificial = men performing domestic tasks to support career women.
men who sacrifice by working hard and providing and protecting are seen as self serving if they expect their wives to manage the home …

kyriosity
Member

Don’t answer questions that aren’t addressed to you. We do not generally agree on this topic, and I don’t want to converse with you about it or anything else.

bdash
Guest
bdash

this is a public forum….

bethyada
Member

I like the patri-anarchy

Jane
Member

There needs to be some kind of tweak to avoid the possible implication (or at least inference) that men of bad character and demeanor don’t have legitimate authority. Authority badly used doesn’t de-legitimate the authority entirely, though it is subject to discipline from higher authority. (I know you agree with this but your dichotomy could be construed otherwise.) I guess my biggest concern is that while the most perfectly biblical manifestation of patriarchy is that held by qualified men, biblically speaking, unqualified men can and do still hold it.

kyriosity
Member

I was hoping that the biblical/unbiblical would cover it, but you’re right, it doesn’t quite. Maybe I need a whole ‘nuther category…? Not coming up with it at a quarter past midnight, though…

MeMe
Guest

‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028

bdash
Guest
bdash

Paul told unbelieving wives to submit to their husbands, FYI husbands back in those days that were not Christians were terrible men….
you got a problem, go talk to PAUL

bethyada
Member

I suggest others read this link from Meme. Meme. This article (I have only read some of it) is problematic in how it defines domestic abuse. The behaviour described is wrong (and is probably common outside the church as well). However the behaviour it is describing is reviling. Reviling is a serious sin and one that can keep us out of the kingdom. It is something that should be preached against in the church more. But it is not physical abuse. Yet the article equates reviling with domestic abuse. One woman frequently has bruised eyes and sometimes broken bones, and… Read more »

OKRickety
Member

bethyada,

I did not manage to completely read the link. When virtually any behavior that a person does not like is considered to be abuse, it is difficult to seriously discuss the subject. It is especially difficult when the poor behavior of women is generally tolerated, but poor behavior of men is immediately castigated.

Lori
Guest
Lori

It’s sad to see that the main concern of so many is that, if men can’t make women submit, how it is really submission? First, men have the same recourse when dealing with their wife’s sin that he does with dealing with anybody else’s sin. If a wife is refusing to submit to her husband, she is in sin. The husband can follow the scriptural pattern for dealing with sin in fellow believers: he can talk to her about it, he can talk to her about it with other people, and he can bring it to the church leaders. But,… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

husbands are to act like Christ they serve by providing, protecting and leading
a husband that does not tell his wife what she is doing is sinful is NOT serving her wife. ( and I would say a wife that does not tell her husband when he is sinning is also NOT loving her husband…)

The word servant leader doe snot exist in the bible, probably for good reason, feminists love to twist it into basically denying male headship

Where in Ephesians does Paul split Male -female relationships form others, it seems to be continuous

Lori
Guest
Lori

Yes, I husband can and should tell his wife when she is sinning, as she should tell him when he sins. However, the authority to “discipline” a wife for not submitting does not rest with the husband. It rests with the church. Just like the wife cannot discipline her husband for his sin. When a Christian sins, there is a way laid out in the scriptures for other Christians to deal with it. It does not involve individual Christians meting out punishment or discipline. Marriage doesn’t change that. A husband does not take over the role of the church in… Read more »

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Any comparison to the relationship between parents and children? At all? Whether or not a husband has the authority to discipline his wife, he does have authority, so I wouldn’t exactly say “Just like the wife cannot discipline her husband for his sin.”. The authority is not the same.

Lori
Guest
Lori

And, just to add, he doesn’t split male-female relationships from others. That’s the point. It is *marriage*–not “male-female relationships” generally–that are marked out as unique.

bethyada
Member

I agree that “servant leader” has been twisted. I think the concept is in the Bible, Jesus washed his disciples feet. But Jesus chose to do this and told Peter it needed to happen. Jesus called the shots, not Peter. So I would say the a husband is to be a servant leader defined as: a man who makes the decisions that he thinks are best for the family even though it costs him. That is, he puts his family’s needs first as he perceives them to be, not as his wife and children demand according to what they want.… Read more »

wtrsims
Member

Perhaps some other good examples are Jesus not turning around and cutting Peter’s ear off for his bad decision of doing the same to Malchus, and Jesus’ “get behind me Satan” when Peter attempted to oppose his plans. Though some seem to be working on arguing for corporal punishment against wives for the purpose of not giving away too much to feminism (it doesn’t seem that hitting women is their point, but rather a refusal to grant feminism or others outside the Church to determine morality) it seems the bigger point is arguing against the idea that a husband doesn’t… Read more »

kyriosity
Member

Wait…what? Tagging??? How you do dat?

wtrsims
Member

At the bottom right-hand corner of the comment box there’s an icon of a person with a “+” beside it. Click it and you’ll get a drop-down menu of people involved in the conversation that you can tag.

Don’t know if it actually notifies the tagged person though, which is what I’m trying to do.

OKRickety
Member

Okay, wtrsims, here is a “tag”. Did you get a notification (email)?

wtrsims
Member

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. I did, OKRickety

kyriosity
Member

Thanks for the discovery, wtrsims! Right up there with Columbus, you are!

Jane
Member

“it seems the bigger point is arguing against the idea that a husband doesn’t have the right or authority to point out to his wife that she is being unsubmissive. ”

Which idea was never stated, however. wtrsims

bethyada
Member

wtrsims

Well that is useful

Sojourner
Guest
Sojourner

Bethyada – Nicely written. A Christian woman would find it easy to submit to a man who exhibits this type of behavior towards her and the family.

bdash
Guest
bdash

spot on

Larry Geiger
Guest
Larry Geiger

Pointer finger meet hornet’s nest…

mardabo
Guest
mardabo

I imagine that submission on the wife’s part is easier with the right kind of husband who does love sacrificially, as Christ loves the church. If, though, the husband is ill-tempered and immature, submission would become a growingly bitter sacrifice for the virtuous wife. The long and short of it, I think, is that each must do their best to live out God’s will. Sarah called Abraham Lord. I have no doubt that obedience to him was the hallmark of her submissive attitude. What then, is the other side of the coin when the wife refuses to obey the husbands… Read more »

Sojourner
Guest
Sojourner

Pornography (aka adultery; which can lead to sexual assault/forcing a woman to perform unwanted/forced sexual activity that goes against what God created to be enjoyed between a man and a woman), drug/alcohol addiction (which can lead to/include domestic abuse/violence), and domestic abuse/violence itself are a few reasons why some women seek divorce first. It used to be that women tolerated these affronts to their marriage and their beings because of their Christian faith and their desire to obey God and do His will or because they were instructed by pastors and elders to “love more”, “submit more”, and “serve more”.… Read more »

OKRickety
Member

” It used to be that women tolerated these affronts to their marriage and their beings because of their Christian faith and their desire to obey God and do His will, ….”

It would seem then that many women no longer tolerate these affronts because they no longer have Christian faith or a desire to obey God and do His will.

“I personally don’t believe in divorce, but I do so in a situation in which a woman is subjected to domestic abuse/violence. “

It’s hard to seriously consider your comment when you contradict yourself in one sentence.

Sojourner
Guest
Sojourner

It may seem like I’m contradicting myself but I am not. Women of faith still endure domestic abuse/violence because they want to obey God and honor their marriage covenant. However, even after enduring domestic violence, which includes hitting, slapping, pushing, beatings, death threats, etc., some stay because they are made to feel guilty by the use of Scripture being taken out of context by the church pastor and/or elders and even fellow believers in Christ Jesus. There are many articles and videos available for viewing regarding this subject but here is a link for 1 and a website for the… Read more »

MeMe
Guest

Pastor Wilson, I’m going to call you irresponsible and accuse you of being more of an enemy to the concept of submission and a marriage than an ally. That probably sounds a bit unfair because it is based mostly on the types of comments you receive. Just the same, by their fruits you shall know them and the fruit of so many who follow you are truly rotten. I’m sure you care deeply about what I think, but just the same your inability, unwillingness, your choice to completely ignore the fact that people are using your words to condone, indeed… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member

Where are you getting the “so many” from? It is only a couple of people who have advocated the use of force against wives, and they have been challenged by quite a few readers. And what do you expect Pastor Wilson to do about it? Should he abandon the doctrine of submission because a very few commenters have repulsive ideas? He said clearly that submission on the woman’s part is voluntary, i.e., not to be forced.

What exactly are you asking him to do?

MeMe
Guest

I am asking him to stand up for the word and to not allow biblical concepts to be perverted and used to justify violence against women.

Christopher
Member

“Just the same, by their fruits you shall know them”

As I have said before and will probably have cause to say again, the comments here or elsewhere on the internet are not the fruit of Dougs teaching or ministry.

MeMe
Guest

They are in a way, just as my words are mine. Pastor Wilson’s words motivate and inspire red pills in their hatred of women. He is just setting out red meat and than claiming no responsibility for the scavengers who feast on it.

Christopher
Member

The red pills feast on your words as much as Wilsons, those who by nature bite and devour will feed on anything.

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

“Pastor Wilson, I’m going to call you irresponsible and accuse you of being more of an enemy to the concept of submission and a marriage than an ally.” I feel your pain. In states of frustration we’re all liable to say things that we later regret. Guilty here many times over. But I really do hope that you regret this statement, for it bears no relationship to truth and reality whatsoever. It’s hard to see a good man smeared like that. Please set the world back on its hinges with an apology. Your repentance would do me good, if nothing… Read more »

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

It is as annoying as a mosquito on a hot summer night, the whining that you wanna be men do by complaining about unsubmissive women. If you man up you will havea partner by your side.. which is what God intended. Grow up.

OKRickety
Member

I hope you enjoy your virtual reality.

Irish lass
Guest
Irish lass

I have noticed that whenever the comment level plummets on Doug’s blog which is quite frequently, he stirs the pot with a post guaranteed to bring out the crazies. I check on the blog maybe 4 times a year and post maybe twice a year. I see the pattern.

kyriosity
Member

I can see where checking the blog just four times a year would provide you with more than sufficient data for such an in-depth statistical analysis…not to mention such an insightful imputation of motives! Your grasp of The True Mablog Facts is staggering.

As someone who posts regularly, I can assure you that the crazies we will have with us always. They are easily stirred, but the rest of us are not easily shaken.

Dave
Guest
Dave

Irish, Kyriosity laid it perfectly on the line. You really shouldn’t jump to conclusions so quickly as Proverbs warns us against that. People who hate God use the same tactic and really stir up the internet hornets who don’t know anything but are ready to sting anyone who takes a hard stand for Christ.

MeMe
Guest

Often people are not objecting to Christ at all. They are objecting to a perversion of scripture and the poor behavior of those calling themselves Christians.

Dave
Guest
Dave

MeMe, there is a small but vocal group in Moscow who hate God and will do anything they can to cause trouble among faithful believers. They promote websites with false information and then use that false information to bolster their hate and to trick others into thinking that what they say is correct. They deliberately cause trouble.

They hate Christ and unfortunately those who are not familiar with Moscow think that the disinformation they provide is truth. There is no other way of saying it except they hate God and godly preaching.

MeMe
Guest

I seethe pattern,too.

OKRickety
Member

Irish lass,

Perhaps Wilson perceives the need for a post on a given topic to be proportional to the resulting controversy. In other words, a topic on which everyone seems to agree does not need regular teaching, but disagreement suggests that teaching is still necessary.

If the pot-stirring bothers you, please feel free to cease checking this blog at all.

Note: I presume that you define “crazies” as those who vehemently state beliefs that disagree with yours.

Jill Smith
Member

Barnie, I think I said “Fell madly in love with” or something similar.  I did not say “had sex with.”  Do you know that there are girls for whom the latter does not, as the night the day, follow upon the former?  I am sure that you and your loved ones lead lives of blameless rectitude. Why would you assume otherwise about anyone else’s?

John Barach
Member

“And others will say: “Should I be agreeable to a woman and put up with her disagreeable ways? I want to be feared by her and to rule with authority, in order that she may realize that I am a man.” You will surely gain great praise if you crush the weak vessel and burden your conscience with excessive bitterness toward a sister and joint heir of the kingdom of God, one who is in the same fellowship of Baptism, of all the kindnesses of God, and of the entire church. Consider what a wife is and who you are.… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

so basically men should submit to their wives

No wonder men are fleeing marriagr

Jane
Member

Next thing you know, someone might put 1 Peter 3:7 in the Bible and then men will REALLY be finished.

bdash
Guest
bdash

That is a beautiful verse!

Kevin Brendler
Guest
Kevin Brendler

Always delighted when Dr. Luther makes an appearance!

Matt Pennock
Member

Wherever the debate on this issue ends up going and into whatever sub-sub-sub issue it takes people who debate it, one thing I think is clear… women don’t submit anymore. This sad comment thread is more than enough proof by itself.

bdash
Guest
bdash

well when the author has partnered written and spoke with advocates for gender role reversal there is Good reason to be suspicious
http://www.lifeway.com/Article/Stay-at-home-dad-primer
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/real-men-love-strong-women
so yes when men are being taught the same thing that used to be instructions to wives for 1000’s of years
and the author works with such men who teach this satanic nonsense

we have very Good reason to suspect motives

Matt Pennock
Member

The value of any person’s work done in honesty and faithfulness to the Word of God cannot be underestimated in a world of liars and deceivers, more today than ever. That Christians have forgotten how to show honor and respect (Rom. 12:5) to someone’s diligent efforts to be true to the Word, such as Doug’s here, but instead have become no better than worldly cultural Marxists constantly questioning and criticizing every single imperfection they can find, only shows the world that they are right about it and that the Church truly is that anti-submissive wife of Christ that scripture prophetically… Read more »

Matt Pennock
Member

Just like the critical theory does so well, the endless criticisms and questionings keep people from ever taking a position on a matter and even justifies in their mind their refusal to ever take any position thus keeping them in a perpetual directionless abyss where all they have to contribute to Christian growth and community is criticisms. Meanwhile the command remains as simple as it has been for 2000 years….wives submit to your husbands.

Peter
Guest
Peter

So many logical and scriptural fallacies! I don’t even know where to start with this. Unreal.

Nonnadg
Guest
Nonnadg

Whew….and holy cow! I know it’s late in the game and it may be no one will notice my comment. Anywho….after reading over half the comments on this thread I’ve gotta say that to my common sense hearing, I’d want nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Christianity if most of the commentators here are representative of what it is to be a Christian. Of course, being a woman might have something to do with that. ;-)

Pamela Parizo
Guest

Pastor Wilson, I applaud everything you say. As a widow hoping to someday remarry (and lived a submitted life), I agree wholeheartedly. However, I do want to comment on the use of the word “erotic” to describe marital love. Eros is largely seen as sexual love that does not necessarily include affection. The only use of the word eros in the Bible is in the Septuagint, and is found in Proverbs to describe the love of the strange woman (let us take our fill of love). Throughout the Song of Solomon, however, we frequently find the use of the word,… Read more »