Submission---Who has to do it?

[Oakspear]

In the dominant culture where women had no rights, and were the property of their husband or father, the submitting to one's own husband seems positively liberal and liberating! Kind of like the verses that admonish masters to treat their slaves well. Both have to be looked at in light of the culture 2000 years ago and not in light of U.S. culture of 2009, IMHO. The verses shouldn't be used to justify subservience of women any more than others should be used to justify slavery.

While I'm on the subject, why does either partner need to be the "CEO"? There are things that my wife takes the lead in, and I defer to her, because she's better at it; the areas where she defers to me has nothing to do with me being a male, but it's areas where I'm better. We discuss issues where we disagree and try to come to a consensus or agreement; nobody has "the deciding vote", we're a partnership.

[rascal]

(((Oak))) as it should be.... WG, I have nothing against marriage either. I am in complete agreement with you as I watch my friends children popping out babies with different fellas every year...I feel sorry for the children and the grandmas that love them.

[Watered Garden]

I don't think there are clear cut rules and regulations in ANY relationship, let alone a marriage. Experiences, upbringing, teaching, faith, all play a part. You work out what works for the two of you. He decides where the money goes because he's GOOD at it; I pick out the color we paint the bedroom, where I work and for whom, what goes on the dinner table because that's what I'M good at. If I handled the finances we would live in a cheap apartment and drive a very nice car. If he did all the cooking, well, some things he's good at, but the curried potato soup was NOT a winner, except for the dog.

We submit to each other in love. Christ is the head of the church, yet He washed his disciples' feet. He is our (Mr. Garden's and my) ultimate example of how to treat each other.

WG

[Twinky]

Let's not forget this verse:

Phil 2:

3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

7 But made himself [Christ Jesus] of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant...

8 ...he humbled himself...

14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings...

This is the level of respect we are required to GIVE EACH OTHER - each believer to every other believer. Each member of the congregation to the minister. Each minister to his congregation. Each spouse to the other.

Kinda dispenses with the ego of being "the leader" or "the CEO" or anything else that sounds glamorous, doesn't it?

We submit to the Lord Jesus Christ - because he first submitted himself (to God and at his direction), to us. He submitted himself even to death. Anything any of us does is generally less than that.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Twinky

[brideofjc]

I would suggest being subject to one another in love is directed to the church, which includes everyone, married and single.

As far as marriage, someone has to be the CEO, and at least in my situation Mr. Garden is better equipped to fill that position. This does not mean that he doesn't ask my thoughts, seek me out for discussion, suggestions and feedback. Being the head of the household is leadership, not dictatorship.

I believe in joint leadership, and not staying three paces behind, etc.

In many Christian churches, Bible studies, classes, etc. the woman gets hammered with submission, obedience, keep your mouth shut and the house cleaned and the meals cooked kind of subjection. I've had Prov. 31:10-31 crammed down my face at least once a year since I was 28 years old, and the house still isn't perfectly immaculate. I actually took one class where this lady said that "The husband is the master, and the wife is his servant." :o

That's really spooky. I'd be running for sure in a church like that one....OMG!

Marriage isn't a job description with carefully delineated responsibilities that are completely separate from the other; it's a life. We are to be heirs TOGETHER of the grace of life.

Men, that's God's daughter you are wedded to. How would YOU feel if some man treated your little girl like dirt, worked her like a slave, spoke rudely and disparagingly to her? Do you think God is going to applaud you if you treat HIS little girl like that? I think love and respect go together; Paul accentuates men loving their wives, and wives respecting their husbands, but nowhere does he state that one cancels out the other. I see nowhere that I am to respect my husband, but not to love him; I see nowhere that he is to love me but be very disrespectful. At the least that is NOT how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. So, yes, men should respect their wives as well as love them.

Think about what Christ went through for the church; the unbelievably horrific torture and humiliation and death He went through for us; that's the kind of sacrificial love men are to have for their wives.

And as Christ invites us to come to the place He has so lovingly prepared for us, and we gratefully, gracefully and graciously accept, so is the wife to submit herself to her own husband. Not "yes dear of course dear" with gritted teeth, but with a joyful step and light heart. Submitting ourselves one to another in love and in the light of Christ's sacrificial love for us.

Amen.

WG

As far as I know Paul was assigning a new behavior for husbands, at least for that culture.  Perhaps he was saying that the women ought to respect there husbands, becuase this new behavior could be seen as a sign of weakness in that culture, and therefore the women would be ashamed of their husbands?just a thought.

Love was a luxury in that day, I do believe.  Marriage was arranged for financial betterment of the families or political reasons.  Therefore, for the husband to love their wives and the wives to respect the pre-arranged marriage partner was phenomenal in their day.

[brideofjc]

I have no Clue... I like what WG said.I am married... we talk things over.... we don't always agree but we usually try to go with who ever is the most affected by the decision... If we really disagree sometimes we wait a month or two and revisit the issue.... usually the person who feels the most strongly about it wins. so to speak.... but we always try to be equals with each other.Sometimes one of us is better at something than the other so that is generally that persons job... but we both try to pitch in when the need is there.I guess what I am trying to say is perhaps submitting should not mean enslavement. As to Marriage going away... I say no.. maybe the institution, the piece of paper, but people are meant to join together in some fashion... the paper doesn't really make it a marriage... even the ceremony doesn't What makes it a marriage is the way the two people work together with each other and enjoy being together. How committed in their hearts they are to each other.

See, I believe that Ephesians is speaking equality between the husband and wife.  

Ummmm....Don't you think that maybe - just maybe - the emphasis is on "YOUR OWN" instead of every husband (or man) out there?  That takes the wind out of the sails of the "women are inferior" doctrine.  hmmmmmm..... And I don't think the emphasis is on "submit to your husband" so much as it is -"Hey! Wake up! It doesn't take a village to be in a  committed relationship. Keep your relationship between you and your significant other."OH NO! That would mean that I'd be (sssssshiver....) submitting to YOU!  No-ooooooooooo!*runs screaming down the street in  mock terror - stops at the corner and falls down laughing*

Eph 5:21-22 are tied irrevocally together by grammar...the one another is the husband and wife.

Besides all of that Dooj....I would make a teriffic mistress, and I even pay a decent wage....

Edited April 10, 2009 by brideofjc

[brideofjc]

In the dominant culture where women had no rights, and were the property of their husband or father, the submitting to one's own husband seems positively liberal and liberating! Kind of like the verses that admonish masters to treat their slaves well. Both have to be looked at in light of the culture 2000 years ago and not in light of U.S. culture of 2009, IMHO. The verses shouldn't be used to justify subservience of women any more than others should be used to justify slavery. While I'm on the subject, why does either partner need to be the "CEO"? There are things that my wife takes the lead in, and I defer to her, because she's better at it; the areas where she defers to me has nothing to do with me being a male, but it's areas where I'm better. We discuss issues where we disagree and try to come to a consensus or agreement; nobody has "the deciding vote", we're a partnership.

Hear! Hear!  Glad to hear it.  I was gonna ask you next if you were married....  Alas....

[Watered Garden]

I'm sorry if I hve misled you by the use of the term "CEO." It seems to have given many of you the impression that I am a typical downtrodden Christian wife, always saying "yes, dear" or "Of course dear." Nothing could be farther from the truth.

However, there are some decisions my husband is better at dealing with that I am, and there are something I am better at than he is. That's how it works. Neither of us makes a unilateral decision on a big, huge, matter without making sure the other is in accord. When we moved from a house, a neighborhood and a city I loved, he made absolutely sure I was in agreement with the move; had I expressed regrets, we'd still be there.

So I'm not advocating a master-servant type relationship, okay?

WG

[GarthP2000]

I'm sorry if I hve misled you by the use of the term "CEO."

Perhaps Grande High Poo-bah would be a more appropo title?

((ducks))

:B)

[Watered Garden]

You are on very thin ice, Garth.

WG

[rascal]

I just know that our so called *christian* marriage taught ala twi has been a nightmare....I don`t know, but I think being programed to expect obedience no matter how hair brained an idea is, or respect no matter how stupid you are acting, because you are smarter, more logical, that because of one woman`s actions in one instance thousands of years ago God requires us to make atonement by needing a man because we are too flighty or irrational really is a recipe for disaster.

I am sorry, but I have seen far to many marriages outside of twi as well where the husbands use scriptural justification for being an overpowering bully.

Women submit not because they are afraid, not because they like it, not because the husband is smarter...but because they are told that God requires this of a virtuous woman...so they suck it up, they hide who they are, they have their input and ideas ignored and dismissed as unimportant....are required to follow instructions even when acutely aware of how detrimental the actions may impact one...comforting themselves in their misery by telling themselves that God will bless them ..... I am sorry, it really is like being in a mini cult all over again.

I just cannot believe that if there is a loving God, that he would deliberately set up a race of beings and design half of them to fail.

I know that marriage CAN work...that it is a beautiful thing...that it is vital for the raising of children when it is approached like Garden and Oak described...but I think that is because of the calibur of the people involved...

I just don`t want my girls to have to submit to someone ignoring their own instinct and well being because they believe that God requires it.

Edited April 11, 2009 by rascal

[Watered Garden]

This is getting way too personal for me.

WG

Edited April 11, 2009 by Watered Garden

[rascal]

How so WG? I admire and respect you and your views. Have I offended you? I question, I search, I try to better understand a loving God and sometimes that is at odds with what I am taught biblicaly. Because I have seen scriptures used to bully and manipulate...maybe I am hyper sensitive to allowing myself or my beautiful intelligent daughters to be placed into servitude because of their gender? Is it me? Am I using my experience to unfairly judge all christian marriages?

I don`t know, I have seen good and I have seen bad...the ones that are good never seem to employ the I am the ultimate authority because I am the man.

Is my resentment coloring my perception of a Christian marriage? I guess that I feel I don`t fully understand the whole concept or there wouldn`t be the bitterness and resentment of having to live up to and by anothers expectations.

[rascal]

I guess I question the whole biblical concept of women and children...I mean it`s like we are disposable. Our value relies directly on how what we bring to our husband. Old Job was the subject of a bet between God n Satan...he lost his wife and children....he passed the test and got another wife and kids along with the rest of his cattle and riches....

Too bad so sad for the first wife and kids...but hey that was ok Job was blessed...the family was as disposable as the cattle and lands....See what I mean?

I just don`t see God as viewing me personally and my children as an asset that can be replaced. That our value solely relating to the husband that we are married to.

It seems grossly unfair to someone whom has tried to be a Godly person her entire life. Yet all of that means nothing if the man I married 20 plus years ago blows it in some area or another.

I just question how a loving God could be so unfair ...so instead of becoming disolusioned with a God who designed and created me to be inferior, forever to have to submit to anothers will...I will instead challenge my understanding and the validity of particular scriptures.

I hope that is ok without being offensive.

[Watered Garden]

I know it can be hard. No human is perfect.

I don't know you, and I'm certainly no therapist or counselor, but I wonder if professional counseling by a real therapist or marriage counselor not connected to any religion might be of use to you and your spouse. I think it works best if you are both willing participants, though.

I don't think that God values one gender over another. I don't believe for a minute that God wants females only to be wives, mothers, servants. A lot of conservative fundys teach this though, and that is such crap. If God didn't want me to use my brain, why would he give me one in the first place?

Rascal, all I can offer you is prayer, and prayer is a powerful thing. But I don't believe God wants anyone to be a servant or slave as some do teach. I cannot imagine not wanting a daughter to go to college, have a profession, do whatever makes her happy and fulfilled. I'm an older generation so there weren't a lot of doors open to me, teacher or nurse and I retch at the sight of blood!

Anyways, I was unhappy with Garth's comment and it had nothing to do with you. I just wish I had some words of wisdom that could be useful.

WG

[doojable]

This thread reminds me of the old cliche,

"You can't see the forest for the trees"

When you focus on a certain part of life it's easy to forget about other relevant things.

One can argue that because mostly men and boys get sent off to war, or that men fill the majority of the jobs as police and firefighters, that they are expendable. Could this be the answer to the "submit doctrine"? (Tongue in cheek here.)

Hitler had his ideas, as did Stalin, Lenin, and numerous other conquerors.

So- who is expendable? Who is replaceable? Who is inferior?

Sadly, for many the answer is, "Anyone who isn't me or like me."

[Bolshevik]

Rascal,

I think Job was asking some of those same questions, if not very similar. Job repeatedly pointed out he did not deserve what he got (let alone his family and servents). God's response to Job is hard to accept I think. I doubt I'd respond as Job did.

[Bolshevik]

Love was a luxury in that day, I do believe.  Marriage was arranged for financial betterment of the families or political reasons.  Therefore, for the husband to love their wives and the wives to respect the pre-arranged marriage partner was phenomenal in their day.

ah, pre-arrangement, sounds icky to my mind. That would take some effort.

[GarthP2000]

You are on very thin ice, Garth.

WG

WG,

I don't know if you noticed, but there was a :B) after my remark.

;) :B)

Further elaborating, the remark "Perhaps Grande High Poo-bah would be a more appropo title?" was a tongue-in-cheek response to what you said re: "I'm sorry if I have misled you by the use of the term "CEO."" I meant no offense nor challenge to anything else you said in my remark, and I apologize of it came across that way.

Peace?

Edited April 11, 2009 by GarthP2000

[Watered Garden]

Peace. I'll even buy you a cyber beer.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Watered Garden

[leafytwiglet]

I am constantly amazed at how much the ministry changed from when I was involved to today. And so Rapidly.

I am not saying the bad stuff wasn't there I am just saying where I was located at it was different.

The teaching was that Marriage was a partnership. Maybe I am remembering it wrong or maybe what was taught in Corps was different than what we were being taught in Twig where I was at... perhaps a testament to the strength of Character of Dana and Mary Armstrong in Idaho and Kipp Holdren?? Holden??? in Montana. And a frightening Look at how much Craig Martindale twisted the scriptures (which were already twisted into something even more awful)

[Watered Garden]

Partnership. That's the way I remember it, and we were both involved from the early 1970's. LCM did twist a lot of stuff. Part of his problem was that women were asking their husbands questions, i.e. what the he11 is going on? The husbands were asking him, the wives were asking each other (I can only imagine what the questions were, I just heard some of this rant in 1993 in FWC). I definitely remember him having a hissy fit about men not keeping their women in line and to do "whatever it takes" to get them under control. Some hapless couple in Michigan was an example. He stopped short of advising a slap to the face but he was pretty sure a lot of the trouble in his ministry was the wives' fault.

I think I've mentioned before somewhere that when we left the FWC we moved to the left coast for a while and the couple we knew there for some damn reason decided that the reason we were not doing well, according to them, was that I was not sufficiently submissive to my husband. Mr. Garden had NO idea why anyone would think that I was out of line, and in any event, he wasn't real sure it was anyone's business. We had never been sat down TOGETHER and told that, this woman just kept hammering me about keeping the house clean (an 800 sq ft apartment takes about 30 minutes to clean thoroughly) and yada yada. Then after several months had passed, this branch leader says to me "Now, isn't life just so much easier when you submit yourself to your husband?" I just goggled at him and mumbled "uh-huh" or something. Later, I asked Mr. Garden what was this guy talking about? Had he reproved Mr. Garden for not having me firmly underfoot? Mr. Garden was mystified.

However, I think the current trend in some of the ultraconservative "new Calvinist" groups is to not quite put a woman in a burka, but she is not expected to work outside the home after marriage, and couples with children are not expected to send their daughters to college; they must be raised to become wives and mothers. If anyone wants to know where I researched this, they can ask me in a private message. I'd rather not say on this forum.

WG

[GarthP2000]

Peace. I'll even buy you a cyber beer.

(Homer Simpson mode on)

B-E-E-E-E-R-R-R-R!! ... mmmmmmmmMMMMMMMmmmmmmm

[excathedra]

i don't belong here, i'm not doctrinal

i submit to god and my savior

:)

[Bolshevik]

. . .

I think I've mentioned before somewhere that when we left the FWC we moved to the left coast for a while and the couple we knew there for some damn reason decided that the reason we were not doing well, according to them, was that I was not sufficiently submissive to my husband. Mr. Garden had NO idea why anyone would think that I was out of line, and in any event, he wasn't real sure it was anyone's business. We had never been sat down TOGETHER and told that, this woman just kept hammering me about keeping the house clean (an 800 sq ft apartment takes about 30 minutes to clean thoroughly) and yada yada. Then after several months had passed, this branch leader says to me "Now, isn't life just so much easier when you submit yourself to your husband?" I just goggled at him and mumbled "uh-huh" or something. Later, I asked Mr. Garden what was this guy talking about? Had he reproved Mr. Garden for not having me firmly underfoot? Mr. Garden was mystified.

. . .

OMG, that reminds me, my wife was bad mouthed before el presidente of el ministry by el stupido leadership for not submitting to me. Where that came from? I'll never know. Nobody ever confronted me on anything. Maybe because they knew I would ask "WTF are you talking about!?"