Did "wives submit to your husbands in everything" deter you from marriage?

[TK421]

There are many Christians who take “wives, submit to your husbands” quite seriously. You only have to watch reality shows to see how this works. The Duggars and their communities of faithful are good examples. Charismatics, from my experience, are quite keen on the hierarchy of the family, as are people in the LDS church. The Amish… Opus Dei…

You know, it’s easy to explain that we live in modern times and that’s just not how the family works anymore, but if you argue that, you are discounting the words of the Bible. That’s being very cafeteria-like, isn’t it?

@Compline:

Not necessarily, because there are various instructions given in the Bible which, properly speaking, are not and sometimes should not be observed. For example, I recall in the book of Acts (I don’t have the passages memorized) explicit instructions on not eating meat sacrificed to idols, which were instructions given to 1st century Christians in order to prevent scandal.

From the Catholic perspective, there is a Magisterium that provides teaching to the faithful, and would inform us whether or not something is objectively sinful. “Not submitting to my husband” is not something mentioned among a list of sins of confess during Reconciliation, since that would need clarified. It may or may not be something wrong. Not being charitable, of course, is always wrong.

To a certain extent, 1st century Christianity already did start somewhat of a feminist revolution because of the way women were treated in Jewish (and Christian) subculture versus Roman society, but of course, the apostles’ mission was to convert souls & preach the Gospel, and they were as much 1st century citizens as anybody else. Angela Merkel being president of one of the world’s largest economies would be very bizarre & foreign to them.

 

[Kit15]

Not really.

If a man is more concerned with my submission to him than he is about his dying to himself then that would deter me from marrying HIM specifically.

Likewise, if I am more concerned about his dying than my submission, I would probably make a pretty lousy wife.

I mean…I think they’re two different ways of looking into the same mirror. Both sentences are different ways to describe self-sacrifice and setting aside your pride for the sake of the other. I think underneath the antiquated phrasing there really is some wise advice for a marriage. Then, just to drive the point home, the passage then goes on to talk about being mutually submissive to each other.

The language of submission can be distasteful with our modern sensibilities. But if both parties are focused on doing their respective jobs and less so on how well the other spouse is doing, this really doesn’t turn into a problem.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

“Neither was Man made for Woman, but Woman for Man,” should say it all.
I never thought being “submissive” meant taking abuse of any kind, especially sexually.
From the beginning, God’s intention was not even that the wife be “submissive.” I really don’t even know where that came from. Eve went alongside her husband, and she was, as I’ve always said, his needed other half. Man was incomplete without the Woman. Man and Woman originally were intended to complement eachother. Sin destroyed the natural beauty of all things.

 

[TK421]

Okay, so I read this article and take back what I said. There is a distinction between man/woman in the sacrament of marriage, although I don’t fully understand what that means because through my newbie layman’s eyes the language is very subtle. It appears the answer is yes but no but yes.

catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/wives-do-what

*“If the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family” (CC). But the fact that some women are prevented from living their proper roles does not mean all married women are dispensed from obedience, as Pius XI makes clear in the next line of his encyclical: “But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact” (CC).

The reason for this is that authority in marriage and male/female equality are separate issues. John Paul II insisted on this point: “In creating the human race ‘male and female’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity, endowing them with the inalienable rights and responsibilities proper to the human person. . . . But clearly, all of this does not mean for women a renunciation of their femininity or an imitation of the male role” (FC 22-23).*

Thanks for the topic. I learned something new today.

 

[TK421]

p.s.

I apologize for giving a false representation.

 

[Walking_Home]

People always take this scripture out of context. It doesn’t mean that the wife does everything the man says. In marriage, it is a thing of mutual obedience. No one is superior to the other, they are both their key to heaven.

---

 

[ComplineSanFran]

@Compline:

Not necessarily, because there are various instructions given in the Bible which, properly speaking, are not and sometimes should not be observed. For example, I recall in the book of Acts (I don’t have the passages memorized) explicit instructions on not eating meat sacrificed to idols, which were instructions given to 1st century Christians in order to prevent scandal.

I do understand your point, and I agree with it. I am not by any means a Biblical literalist. However, for those who do try to follow the Biblical teachings to their fullest degree, Paul’s words on the role of women are non-negotiables. And I would guess that the Roman Catholic Church was right up there with them for centuries. The place of women in the church has never been a prominent one.

My point, though, is not about the role of women in marriage according to the RCC. What I am trying to get across is that we all pick and choose sections from the Bible that we prefer to follow and prefer not to follow. We do it personally and we do it institutionally. The problems we get into are when we disagree which ones we choose.

(And BTW, are people watching “The Handmaid’s Tale”? Food for thought regarding this conversation.)

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

A husband probably would not get a dog if his wife objected. I am not concerned about their feelings. I am thinking the poor dog would be getting the short end and maybe they would get rid of it. I should know. I have adopted animals, and it is the same old story. One of them was surrendered because the husband did not like him.

I have talked to the wife about her plans of getting a Yorkie. She had the money, and she has been waiting for 3 or 4 years for the decision to come down from His Nibs. But, no Yorkie, only a Mercedes convertible and a chest full of diamonds worth umpteen thousand dollars. You can’t curl up to a diamond or a Mercedes, but animals are great and most of all, they are alive.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

No, because I don’t intend to marry a man who expects that of me.

That is basically what I did. Does it bother me? Yea it did, but the man I married didn’t think that way so it didn’t bother me in practice: it bothered me in principle because it made me feel second class. So I decided that I must be misinterpreting it because I’m sure Jesus doesn’t think of me that way.

 

[Andrea_Day]

That is basically what I did. Does it bother me? Yea it did, but the man I married didn’t think that way so it didn’t bother me in practice: it bothered me in principle because it made me feel second class. So I decided that I must be misinterpreting it because I’m sure Jesus doesn’t think of me that way.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[steve93]

It isn’t meant to be at all misogynistic. Perhaps respect would be a better word to use, since submit has gained a connotation of cowering or acquiescence.
I fail to see how calling men to love their wives to the point of imitating Christ’s sacrifice of His own life can be misogynistic.

And the mention of that sick reality tv “family” makes my blood boil. He needs a little “mild, inappropriate touching” upside the head with a 2X4.
Molest your own sister then cheat on your wife with a hooker. Then blame her.
What have we come to.

 

[Andrea_Day]

I never thought being “submissive” meant taking abuse of any kind, especially sexually.
From the beginning, God’s intention was not even that the wife be “submissive.” I really don’t even know where that came from. Eve went alongside her husband, and she was, as I’ve always said, his needed other half. Man was incomplete without the Woman. Man and Woman originally were intended to complement each other. Sin destroyed the natural beauty of all things.

No, wives are not required to submit to abuse. Submission did actually begin with Adam and Eve though. Eve was created as Adam’s helper, implying Adam’s leadership and authority. And as soon as they sinned, God declared, “thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee,” Genesis 3:16

 

[Andrea_Day]

It did deter me from marriage. I’m practically a fetus though, so it’s not like my dating life was affected or anything. However, it’s unlikely that I’ll date a misogynistic guy so why would I be worried about marrying one. The guy I’ll probably marry, given the type of guys around me, is probably one with an “egalitarian” mindset, so the actual likelihood of me marrying one that would insist he is the head is low. If I married a guy like that…maybe I wouldn’t mind submitting, whatever that means. I don’t know how I am going to be like in the future.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Andrea_Day]

“Not submitting to my husband” is not something mentioned among a list of sins of confess during Reconciliation, since that would need clarified.

That’s actually in my parent’s examination of conscience booklet.

 

[Andrea_Day]

Not really.

If a man is more concerned with my submission to him than he is about his dying to himself then that would deter me from marrying HIM specifically.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Andrea_Day]

It wasn’t my experience, no. The marriages I saw in which the wife followed the husband’s lead seemed very happy and fulfilling, and I wanted that for myself.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Andrea_Day]

Thanks for the topic. I learned something new today.

You’re welcome. I invite you to read paragraphs 26 through 29 of Casti Connubii as well.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

 

[Andrea_Day]

No, because I don’t intend to marry a man who expects that of me.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Brendan]

I would also recommend St. John Chrysostom’s Homily XX on Ephesians

newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm

The hardest part of Ephesians 5 really falls on the husband

You have seen the measure of obedience, hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obedient unto you, as the Church is to Christ? Take then yourself the same provident care for her, as Christ takes for the Church. Yea, even if it shall be needful for you to give your life for her, yea, and to be cut into pieces ten thousand times, yea, and to endure and undergo any suffering whatever—refuse it not.

Though you should undergo all this, yet will you not, no, not even then, have done anything like Christ. For thou indeed art doing it for one to whom you are already knit; but He for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way then as He laid at His feet her who turned her back on Him, who hated, and spurned, and disdained Him, not by menaces, nor by violence, nor by terror, nor by anything else of the kind, but by his unwearied affection; so also do thou behave yourself toward your wife.

Yea, though thou see her looking down upon you, and disdaining, and scorning you, yet by your great thoughtfulness for her, by affection, by kindness, you will be able to lay her at your feet. For there is nothing more powerful to sway than these bonds, and especially for husband and wife. A servant, indeed, one will be able, perhaps, to bind down by fear; nay not even him, for he will soon start away and be gone. But the partner of one’s life, the mother of one’s children, the foundation of one’s every joy, one ought never to chain down by fear and menaces, but with love and good temper.

For what sort of union is that, where the wife trembles at her husband? And what sort of pleasure will the husband himself enjoy, if he dwells with his wife as with a slave, and not as with a free-woman? Yea, though you should suffer anything on her account, do not upbraid her; for neither did Christ do this

.

It is interesting that St Paul asks of each what is most difficult for each to offer. For the man, to offer love. Not just the emotion, but the die to self agape that Christ gives to the Church.

And for the woman, obedience, the same obedience that the Church offers to Christ.

In our modern society, it becomes very easy to focus on the ‘me’ part. Is my wife obedient to me, is my husband offering my servile love.

What really counts, as The Golden Tongued Doctor notes, is for each to focus on what St Paul counsels us in our role. My role, as a husband, is to devote myself to servile love. That is what I am commanded to do, and that is what I will be held accountable to do on Judgement Day. I often fail, but that is what Confession is for. Both to God and to my wife.

 

[exnihilo]

It didn’t deter me. The husband is the head of the household. It is a partnership, but someone has to have the final say. That is the husband. At the same time the husband is called to an especially sacrificial role in the marriage. He is to be willing to lay down his life. That is certainly a difficult and challenging charge.

It should go without saying that in a Christian marriage a husband should act Christian. But him not acting Christian doesn’t abrogate his authority. If mere failure to act properly removed all obligations on those under authority then we’d have no authority.

Incidentally I find that most women want to be led by a man. I don’t find they respect weak men. I’ve also observed that women will often push a man who doesn’t lead and show strength. The man might wrongly think he should react by being more acquiescent. Thus a vicious cycle can develop. As always the wisdom of Holy Scripture transcends time and place.

No. Like St. Paul’s exhortation to slaves to obey their masters, this is outdated. Most couple I know recognize that the husband and wife are partners – equal in authority in all things temporal and spiritual.

One clear theme in the New Testament is to submit to authority. I struggle with that. I don’t like to submit to authority. I want to be in charge. But if we think about it we have God, the state, the patriarch, the father, the mother etc. as Christians we also have the Church. Recent history has been a complete liberation of authority. Not just from worldly power but the eternal as well. It’s not working out so well.

It is clearly Christian to suffer under unjust authority. Christianity has transformed the world by showing obedience even when the authority was wrong. I’m not saying any particular person has to put up with any particular injustice. But I do think we’ve gotten soft in how we look at authority.