S
severus68
Guest
Let’s make it simple and clear. Let us say they reject headship as you define it. I would appreciate an answer, thanks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
thewanderer
Guest
That hardly makes things clear. I have been misunderstood enough on this thread already. Give me a clear definition of headship and I will tell you what I think about it.Let’s make it simple and clear. Let us say they reject headship as you define it. I would appreciate an answer, thanks.
T
thewanderer
Guest
As an interesting side note, in previous discussions here on CAF you have agreed with my posts on this topic. My opinion on the matter has not changed since then. I highly suspect you agree with me much more than you realize, and that you just hate the term “headship” and the fact that I have insisted that scripture and the church use this phrase has made you assume false things about my opinion on this topic. I will state again, ** that** the church and scripture insist that the man is the head is indisputable. ** what** the church means by this, however is something open for discussion. Just because I insist that the man is the head does not mean I think the man has automatic authority to have last say on all decisions. In fact, as I have already said multiple times, I think the idea that the man has some automatic authority to have last say on everything is contrary to the official Catholic teaching on what it means for the man to be the head. I am not claiming all wives must give their husbands last say in everything.That hardly makes things clear. I have been misunderstood enough on this thread already. Give me a clear definition of headship and I will tell you what I think about it.
S
severus68
Guest
As far as I am concerned, there is no headship in a marriage. You and others insist there is. Why am I to define what you say there is? tell Surely someone is prepared to give an answer as they are prepared to tell couples how to live their marriages.That hardly makes things clear. I have been misunderstood enough on this thread already. Give me a clear definition of headship and I will tell you what I think about it.
Its alright, thanks.
S
severus68
Guest
Sorry, I did not see this post before I replied to you earlier.As an interesting side note, in previous discussions here on CAF you have agreed with my posts on this topic. My opinion on the matter has not changed since then. I highly suspect you agree with me much more than you realize, and that you just hate the term “headship” and the fact that I have insisted that scripture and the church use this phrase has made you assume false things about my opinion on this topic. I will state again, ** that** the church and scripture insist that the man is the head is indisputable. ** what** the church means by this, however is something open for discussion. Just because I insist that the man is the head does not mean I think the man has automatic authority to have last say on all decisions. In fact, as I have already said multiple times, I think the idea that the man has some automatic authority to have last say on everything is contrary to the official Catholic teaching on what it means for the man to be the head. I am not claiming all wives must give their husbands last say in everything.
I did agree on something you posted on another thread. I am not unreasonable. I did wonder after that whether you would have misunderstood and thought I agreed on more than that one point.
On your point above, a head has final authority by definition. It is not possible to say husbands are the heads of their families and then back pedal with qualifications. ( I am not targetting you, please know.
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I think the whole word “headship” should be retired. I think there are times when a wife has a better idea of what’s going on and perhaps is closer to what’s happening and she has to make decisions. My husband worked construction most of his life and was often gone weeks at a time. I worked nights for 25 years, and frankly usually wasn’t in any mood to put up with a lot of kid-drama-cr#p when I got home–and the kids knew it. When my husband called home, the last thing he wanted was a list of issues to decide from 1000 miles away. I made most of the decisions around the house and that’s just how it was. I’m a nurse practitioner–which I only mention as it shows that I’m not totally retarded. I had 3 BIG boys who were over 6’ tall by the time they hit 15 or so, and 2 girls with attitudes. I learned how to stand up to a 15 year old boy with testosterone poisoning who stood a foot higher than me and put–as we say in Texas–the fear of the Lord in him! After that, I could put a teen girl in her place with no problem! Conversely, when my husband was home, he did make some decisions and I didn’t balk when he did. However, normally when he was home, he had a tendency to tell the kids “Ask Mom” because he knew that I knew who was in trouble for what and he didn’t. When a really big issue came up, I certainly ran it past him. This “headship” thing may have worked 2000 years ago in the desert–but it has to be adjusted today. My husband knows that I respect and love him and if he absolutely said “No!” on something , I had his back. That’s called a partnership–and is far more important today than who is boss and who is subserviant!As an interesting side note, in previous discussions here on CAF you have agreed with my posts on this topic. My opinion on the matter has not changed since then. I highly suspect you agree with me much more than you realize, and that you just hate the term “headship” and the fact that I have insisted that scripture and the church use this phrase has made you assume false things about my opinion on this topic. I will state again, ** that** the church and scripture insist that the man is the head is indisputable. ** what** the church means by this, however is something open for discussion. Just because I insist that the man is the head does not mean I think the man has automatic authority to have last say on all decisions. In fact, as I have already said multiple times, I think the idea that the man has some automatic authority to have last say on everything is contrary to the official Catholic teaching on what it means for the man to be the head. I am not claiming all wives must give their husbands last say in everything.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I don’t agree with everything you say in the rest of your post, but this suggestion is intriguing. You see, biblically, the HEART was the source of decision-making, not the head. So when Paul says that the husband is “head” of his wife, that refers to some kind of authority, but it doesn’t obviously refer to decision-making authority. It may refer to something more like “wonkishness” – that is, the responsibility of setting up the family in certain ways that are amenable to the central goals of the couple. Thus, husbands might be in charge of thinking about the big picture – which makes some sense, since women are often biologically and dispositionally experts on the details.I think the whole word “headship” should be retired.
The central point is that the Greek word “head” (cephale) does not mean the same thing as the English word “head”. I can’t think of a better translation, but it’s worth considering.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
You’re using facts about an English word to describe a Greek word. It doesn’t work that way.On your point above, a head has final authority by definition.
(In fact, some ancients thought that we thought with our hearts, not our heads).
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I respect your opinion–I’m just saying that marriages today are not exactly like they were 2000 years ago. In this world, many times both husband and wife work outside the home, and may or may not even be able to come home every night–in Jesus’ day, it was the husband who worked, the wife cared for the home and kids, and daddy was home every night… Today, different jobs make different demands on spouses–such as one being gone a lot. I’ve been married 46 years. We all just do the best we can. My husband knows I love and respect him–and I know he feels the same about me. So making actual decisions was not that big a deal–we basically agreed on our approach to life–so he pretty much knew that any decision I made he’d agree with. It helps when one marries their best friend and not someone they have to spar with!I don’t agree with everything you say in the rest of your post, but this suggestion is intriguing. You see, biblically, the HEART was the source of decision-making, not the head. So when Paul says that the husband is “head” of his wife, that refers to some kind of authority, but it doesn’t obviously refer to decision-making authority. It may refer to something more like “wonkishness” – that is, the responsibility of setting up the family in certain ways that are amenable to the central goals of the couple. Thus, husbands might be in charge of thinking about the big picture – which makes some sense, since women are often biologically and dispositionally experts on the details.
The central point is that the Greek word “head” (cephale) does not mean the same thing as the English word “head”. I can’t think of a better translation, but it’s worth considering.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Starrsmother said:
“I respect your opinion–I’m just saying that marriages today are not exactly like they were 2000 years ago. In this world, many times both husband and wife work outside the home, and may or may not even be able to come home every night–in Jesus’ day, it was the husband who worked, the wife cared for the home and kids, and daddy was home every night… Today, different jobs make different demands on spouses–such as one being gone a lot.”
I don’t know about that. If you look at the Proverbs 31 woman, it almost sounds like a modern two-income upper-middle class family. Obviously, her business is largely home-based, but she sounds like she has a very high level of autonomy and financial responsibility in her family. And that was hundreds of years before St. Paul.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant,
she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and tasks for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She girds her loins with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor,
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes herself coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates,
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers girdles to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.
“I respect your opinion–I’m just saying that marriages today are not exactly like they were 2000 years ago. In this world, many times both husband and wife work outside the home, and may or may not even be able to come home every night–in Jesus’ day, it was the husband who worked, the wife cared for the home and kids, and daddy was home every night… Today, different jobs make different demands on spouses–such as one being gone a lot.”
I don’t know about that. If you look at the Proverbs 31 woman, it almost sounds like a modern two-income upper-middle class family. Obviously, her business is largely home-based, but she sounds like she has a very high level of autonomy and financial responsibility in her family. And that was hundreds of years before St. Paul.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant,
she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and tasks for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She girds her loins with strength
and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor,
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes herself coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates,
when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
she delivers girdles to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household,
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the gates.
B
Book_Worm
Guest
Twenty-six pages and not one answer to the original question - What are the practical ways in which a wife should submit to her husband.
Which leads me to think there is no one answer.
In the OP, there are two examples, the unaffordable Disney trip and the possibly impractical family Rosary. Would the responses be any different if the roles were reversed and the DH wanted the trip and the DW suggested the Rosary? I think the factors involved should be considered equally, no matter who suggested the actions, and I doubt that many would disagree.
So in what way would those situations be relevant to the ideas of headship and submission?
Or is there no relevance?
Which leads me to think there is no one answer.
In the OP, there are two examples, the unaffordable Disney trip and the possibly impractical family Rosary. Would the responses be any different if the roles were reversed and the DH wanted the trip and the DW suggested the Rosary? I think the factors involved should be considered equally, no matter who suggested the actions, and I doubt that many would disagree.
So in what way would those situations be relevant to the ideas of headship and submission?
Or is there no relevance?
T
thewanderer
Guest
This email s the claim I don’t understand. By whose definition does headship necessarily imply final authority? Your definition? Mine? The Church’s? There is no one definitive definition of headship such that it can never be used to mean something else. Language just doesn’t work like that.Sorry, I did not see this post before I replied to you earlier.
I did agree on something you posted on another thread. I am not unreasonable. I did wonder after that whether you would have misunderstood and thought I agreed on more than that one point.
**On your point above, a head has final authority by definition. **It is not possible to say husbands are the heads of their families and then back pedal with qualifications. ( I am not targetting you, please know.
S
severus68
Guest
I assue you meant post not email. Did you combine two of my postsaThis email s the claim I don’t understand. By whose definition does headship necessarily imply final authority? Your definition? Mine? The Church’s? There is no one definitive definition of headship such that it can never be used to mean something else. Language just doesn’t work like that.
Yes, I accept that you said a wife does not always have to obey but you have not reconciled that with headship/submission.
My question to you and others was simple and I will rephrase - According to what you mean by headship and submission of the wife, would a couple sin by refusing to accept headship and submission? I am not making any claim. I am asking all who make their claim and say it is Church teachings to please answer.
S
severus68
Guest
Please don’t tell me what I am saying.You’re using facts about an English word to describe a Greek word. It doesn’t work that way.
(In fact, some ancients thought that we thought with our hearts, not our heads).
So if a couple refuse to follow headship and submission according to the Biblical meaning, are they sinning pleas?
X
Xantippe
Guest
Bookworm said:
“Twenty-six pages and not one answer to the original question - What are the practical ways in which a wife should submit to her husband.”
It probably depends very much on individual circumstances. Consider, for instance, what would be appropriate conduct for a wife whose husband has a severe mental illness, Alzheimers or a gambling or drug addiction.
severus68 said:
“According to what you mean by headship and submission of the wife, would a couple sin by refusing to accept headship and submission?”
Presumably, even if one accepts a very strong version of headship, the husband has the right to hand over substantial authority to his wife. That’s general how authority works–if one has authority, one has the right to delegate it.
“Twenty-six pages and not one answer to the original question - What are the practical ways in which a wife should submit to her husband.”
It probably depends very much on individual circumstances. Consider, for instance, what would be appropriate conduct for a wife whose husband has a severe mental illness, Alzheimers or a gambling or drug addiction.
severus68 said:
“According to what you mean by headship and submission of the wife, would a couple sin by refusing to accept headship and submission?”
Presumably, even if one accepts a very strong version of headship, the husband has the right to hand over substantial authority to his wife. That’s general how authority works–if one has authority, one has the right to delegate it.
S
severus68
Guest
Bookworm said:
“Twenty-six pages and not one answer to the original question - What are the practical ways in which a wife should submit to her husband.”
It probably depends very much on individual circumstances. Consider, for instance, what would be appropriate conduct for a wife whose husband has a severe mental illness, Alzheimers or a gambling or drug addiction.
severus68 said:
“According to what you mean by headship and submission of the wife, would a couple sin by refusing to accept headship and submission?”
Thank you for replying. However, in this case, the husband and wife refuse to accept that headship and submission are right, correct or required by Christ.Presumably, even if one accepts a very strong version of headship, the husband has the right to hand over substantial authority to his wife. That’s general how authority works–if one has authority, one has the right to delegate it.
B
Book_Worm
Guest
Bookworm said:
“Twenty-six pages and not one answer to the original question - What are the practical ways in which a wife should submit to her husband.”
It probably depends very much on individual circumstances. Consider, for instance, what would be appropriate conduct for a wife whose husband has a severe mental illness, Alzheimers or a gambling or drug addiction.
So, you are saying that it is not relevant? Taking your examples back a bit, if the wife has a superior ability to handle finances, organization, or religious practices for the family because of intelligence, ability, training or experience, does that mean that she has the right to assume headship (an ugly word if I ever heard one) or must it be delegated by the husband?
X
Xantippe
Guest
severus68 said:
“However, in this case, the husband and wife refuse to accept that headship and submission are right, correct or required by Christ.”
Presumably, the husband and wife believe that “headship and submission” means something oppressive, imprudent, destructive and evil. And while it’s possible to have a more positive notion of headship and submission, why should we want a couple to engage in a practice they believe to be morally wrong? It’s unlikely that the couple in our example could have a healthy version of “headship and submission” if it’s so contrary to their moral intuitions.
Bear in mind, our hypothetical couple probably has a reasonably happy marriage and you might actually find a certain amount of headship and submission going on under their roof, it’s just that that isn’t their terminology of choice.
If the couple isn’t happy or if there’s some sort of disagreement going on, that’s quite a different thing, but if they’re happy, why should we fuss them?
“However, in this case, the husband and wife refuse to accept that headship and submission are right, correct or required by Christ.”
Presumably, the husband and wife believe that “headship and submission” means something oppressive, imprudent, destructive and evil. And while it’s possible to have a more positive notion of headship and submission, why should we want a couple to engage in a practice they believe to be morally wrong? It’s unlikely that the couple in our example could have a healthy version of “headship and submission” if it’s so contrary to their moral intuitions.
Bear in mind, our hypothetical couple probably has a reasonably happy marriage and you might actually find a certain amount of headship and submission going on under their roof, it’s just that that isn’t their terminology of choice.
If the couple isn’t happy or if there’s some sort of disagreement going on, that’s quite a different thing, but if they’re happy, why should we fuss them?
B
Bookcat
Guest
It is good to note that there is the truth on the level of the truth, the teaching itself.
“the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”
~ Ephesians 5:23 RSVCE
(and what that teaching does* not* mean…)
*And then there is the contingent practical ways that can vary in living according to that truth in the various different circumstances and cultures and persons.
*
These ways can often vary greatly as the cultures etc vary. (In this “kind of teaching” -not in say do not murder…etc there are teachings that do not admit of such contingent aspects and differing legit ways of living them out).
Often the discussion of -the debating of this teaching - can circle around the “contingent details” of one family or place or culture that (can often) differ from one another.
The truth of the teaching (in its authentic meaning as taught by Sacred Scripture and the Church) is one thing - the legit differing application in various ways in various families, cultures etc is another (and there can even be exceptions to this particular teaching in practice -say where the husband is not able to fulfill his role here or there etc).
Lets keep this in mind in discussing these things.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Book Worm said:
“So, you are saying that it is not relevant? Taking your examples back a bit, if the wife has a superior ability to handle finances, organization, or religious practices for the family because of intelligence, ability, training or experience, does that mean that she has the right to assume headship (an ugly word if I ever heard one) or must it be delegated by the husband?”
My position is that whatever headship and submission means, it has to also apply to worst case scenarios like the ones I mentioned (a husband with dementia, mental illness or addiction). If you can come up with a model of headship and submission that still works for those cases, your model of headship will still work for the less severe situations.
I’ve argued for a number of different ideas. I think one of the ideas that might work in the extreme situations (and elsewhere) is a constitutional monarchy version of headship, where the husband has all of the respect and love due to a husband and father, but his authority is circumscribed (he can’t expect his wife to go along with plans that are imprudent, immoral, or detrimental to family welfare).
In practice, this would probably look a lot like the egalitarian model, but as somebody was quoting Tolstoy earlier, “Happy families are all alike,” even families that have very different theories about what they are doing.
“So, you are saying that it is not relevant? Taking your examples back a bit, if the wife has a superior ability to handle finances, organization, or religious practices for the family because of intelligence, ability, training or experience, does that mean that she has the right to assume headship (an ugly word if I ever heard one) or must it be delegated by the husband?”
My position is that whatever headship and submission means, it has to also apply to worst case scenarios like the ones I mentioned (a husband with dementia, mental illness or addiction). If you can come up with a model of headship and submission that still works for those cases, your model of headship will still work for the less severe situations.
I’ve argued for a number of different ideas. I think one of the ideas that might work in the extreme situations (and elsewhere) is a constitutional monarchy version of headship, where the husband has all of the respect and love due to a husband and father, but his authority is circumscribed (he can’t expect his wife to go along with plans that are imprudent, immoral, or detrimental to family welfare).
In practice, this would probably look a lot like the egalitarian model, but as somebody was quoting Tolstoy earlier, “Happy families are all alike,” even families that have very different theories about what they are doing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.