What do you think of men who want a submissive wife?

[ToeInTheWater]

I’ve written a lot about marriage and the perils of submission on CAF over the past year or so. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but here are two more thoughts.

1. When a husband says (as his clinching argument), “because I’m the man,” it does suggest that he doesn’t have a very good case for whatever it is he’s doing. In fact, it does suggest that whatever it is he wants to do is probably a bad idea. If it were a good idea, he’d have better arguments for it.
2. If you read sites like No Longer Quivering or Free Jinger, you often run into women that used to believe whole-heartedly in wifely submission, but then bailed on it. The fundamentalist model of wifely submission seems to produce a lot of brittle marriages that look good on the outside, right up until they blow up. So, just from self-interest, it’s a good idea to avoid that model–that system has no safety valve.

And unfortunately, many women who flee the fundamentalist model wind up becoming completely alienated from the idea of Christianity, or even religion at all. The LoveJoyFeminism blog on patheos.org has been very critical of the Christian Patriarchy movement, and many of the criticisms are well-founded. Unfortunately, the blogger is also an atheist who supports abortion, and frames “abortion rights” in the usual secular feminist narrative of women regaining control over their bodies.

Also, such sites seem to quickly throw out the baby with the bathwater. I recall some people speculating, quite uncharitably, after the Josh Duggar scandal broke, that the husbands of the married Duggar girls would mistreat them, even physically abuse them for not being “pure”. To me that goes too far.

Obviously we don’t know what goes on behind closed doors, but I certainly have a hard time seeing either of the young husbands being physically abusive to their wives (especially as one just gave birth and the other is pregnant). Of course, I’m sure the fundamentalist model can certainly lead to outright abuse in some cases, but to say essentially that all such marriages are inherently abusive and should break up, doesn’t sit well with me either.

Neither does, IMHO, the way many Duggar girls “defenders” characterize them as brainwashed victims who just sit there like a lump and let the men in the family do whatever they want. Now I know the show is edited, but I’ve never gotten that impression. Indeed, there have been hints that some of them are chafing, not just Jinger or Jana, but even Jessa refusing to have her first kiss in public (and apparently shocking her parents by breaking from the script) seems to indicate that no, they actually do have minds of their own, they’re not just helpless victims.

However, I think there’s a whole range of options between “traditional marriage where wife has no say” to “radically egalitarian marriage”. Unfortunately, so far we’ve only heard from the Bible-thumping traditionalists and those who completely reject the idea of wifely submission.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’ve spent the last year or so poking around the “Christian” manosphere and the wilder areas of internet Protestant fundamentalism, and I’ve run into some crazy stuff. Being a middle aged lady who has been around a lot of very normal American Evangelicals and Catholics over the years, I feel like I’ve been discovering species of American Christians that I had previously known nothing about. I’m more and more sure that being really keen on wifely submission is a very bad sign with regard to a man’s fitness for marriage and fatherhood. (If anybody disagrees with that, head over to Dalrock and read comment threads for 30 minutes and then come back and argue with me, if you have the heart.)

Speaking very pragmatically, I think that one of the gifts of marriage is to be able to bring both spouses’ talents and knowledge to bear on the problems that the family faces. In a submission-oriented family structure, the family plane is flying with only one wing. Again, pragmatically, I think there are enormous benefits to using a “two yes” system in family decision-making for non-emergency situations (and most decision-making is non-emergency). I’ve arrived at this belief from being a huge Dave Ramsey fan for the past 8-9 years and listening to a lot of calls that he takes from husbands and wives and couples, whether in financial crisis, or working together effectively and achieving seemingly impossible goals together. One-wing families just limp along at best (when they’re not crashing into a mountainside), but when couples are in agreement and working together, nothing can stop them. DR teaches a model of joint budget and financial planning that encourages both spouses to be fully functional and contributing adults, and it’s a very attractive and effective method as I know from having used it for nearly 8 years now. And DR is at the same time a very old school, traditional husband and dad–so it is possible to combine both an egalitarian model of decision-making with an old school, traditional ethos.

I’ve written a lot about marriage and the perils of submission on CAF over the past year or so. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but here are two more thoughts.

1. When a husband says (as his clinching argument), “because I’m the man,” it does suggest that he doesn’t have a very good case for whatever it is he’s doing. In fact, it does suggest that whatever it is he wants to do is probably a bad idea. If it were a good idea, he’d have better arguments for it.
2. If you read sites like No Longer Quivering or Free Jinger, you often run into women that used to believe whole-heartedly in wifely submission, but then bailed on it. The fundamentalist model of wifely submission seems to produce a lot of brittle marriages that look good on the outside, right up until they blow up. So, just from self-interest, it’s a good idea to avoid that model–that system has no safety valve.

I’m not objecting to the observation that some movements that propose to be the friends of marriage don’t exactly have that outcome, but I’d like to temper it a bit.

The internet is the Friend of the Fringe. Whatever little unpopular idea you have, you can set up a web site and find yourself 100 friends from around the world that make you all feel as if you are mainstream somewhere. You can create a place where you are not an extremist. It is actually virtual, but it feels real! You can get online and agree with each other all day without anyone in the group ever really seeing the reality on the other side of all of those other confident keyboards.

As for marriages that look good on the outside right until they blow up, well, it is sad to say but that describes an awful lot of broken marriages regardless of why they break up.

Marriage requires a meeting of the minds and a commitment to stick in there in the knowledge that you don’t know what directions a mind may take over the years, for both better and for worse. There is no philosophy that lets you get around that. When St. Paul advised people not to be unevenly yoked, he was not being judgmental. He was not underestimating the Power of True Love. He was being extremely practical and clear-headed.

 

[pianistclare]

And unfortunately, many women who flee the fundamentalist model wind up becoming completely alienated from the idea of Christianity, or even religion at all. The LoveJoyFeminism blog on patheos.org has been very critical of the Christian Patriarchy movement, and many of the criticisms are well-founded. Unfortunately, the blogger is also an atheist who supports abortion, and frames “abortion rights” in the usual secular feminist narrative of women regaining control over their bodies.

Also, such sites seem to quickly throw out the baby with the bathwater. I recall some people speculating, quite uncharitably, after the Josh Duggar scandal broke, that the husbands of the married Duggar girls would mistreat them, even physically abuse them for not being “pure”. To me that goes too far.

Obviously we don’t know what goes on behind closed doors, but I certainly have a hard time seeing either of the young husbands being physically abusive to their wives (especially as one just gave birth and the other is pregnant). Of course, I’m sure the fundamentalist model can certainly lead to outright abuse in some cases, but to say essentially that all such marriages are inherently abusive and should break up, doesn’t sit well with me either.

Neither does, IMHO, the way many Duggar girls “defenders” characterize them as brainwashed victims who just sit there like a lump and let the men in the family do whatever they want. Now I know the show is edited, but I’ve never gotten that impression. Indeed, there have been hints that some of them are chafing, not just Jinger or Jana, but even Jessa refusing to have her first kiss in public (and apparently shocking her parents by breaking from the script) seems to indicate that no, they actually do have minds of their own, they’re not just helpless victims.

However, I think there’s a whole range of options between “traditional marriage where wife has no say” to “radically egalitarian marriage”. Unfortunately, so far we’ve only heard from the Bible-thumping traditionalists and those who completely reject the idea of wifely submission.

I guess you didn’t read my post.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’m not objecting to the observation that some movements that propose to be the friends of marriage don’t exactly have that outcome, but I’d like to temper it a bit.

The internet is the Friend of the Fringe. Whatever little unpopular idea you have, you can set up a web site and find yourself 100 friends from around the world that make you all feel as if you are mainstream somewhere. You can create a place where you are not an extremist. It is actually virtual, but it feels real!

ITA. This is also know as the “echo chamber” effect. Now the usual disclaimers about Wikipedia but I certainly agree with the following from the Wiki on Echo Chamber:

Participants in online communities may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, which reinforces their individual belief systems. This can create significant barriers to critical discourse within an online medium. The echo chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their world view. Another emerging term for this echoing and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is cultural tribalism.

I totally agree that society is becoming more and more fractured and polarized, with people becoming isolated into “tribes” instead of actually interacting with greater society. Actual respectful discussion of different beliefs that don’t degenerate into ad hominem attacks seem quite rare these days.

As for marriages that look good on the outside right until they blow up, well, it is sad to say but that describes an awful lot of broken marriages regardless of why they break up.

Yeah, I don’t think Xantippe was quite stating that all marriages where there is a model of husbandly headship and wifely submission are ALL brittle and doomed to failure, or that they all must be abusive. I think many couples who have more “traditionalist” or “complementary” marriages would be quite offended to hear that. Much as those in more “egalitarian” marriages would bristle if they were told they’re at risk of failure (as one traditionalist actually claimed was the case with his circle, that all the egalitarians he knew wound up divorced).

 

[Xantippe]

Yeah, I don’t think Xantippe was quite stating that all marriages where there is a model of husbandly headship and wifely submission are ALL brittle and doomed to failure, or that they all must be abusive. I think many couples who have more “traditionalist” or “complementary” marriages would be quite offended to hear that. Much as those in more “egalitarian” marriages would bristle if they were told they’re at risk of failure (as one traditionalist actually claimed was the case with his circle, that all the egalitarians he knew wound up divorced).

To clarify, I don’t think that “traditional” marriages are necessarily brittle, but I do think that “neo-traditional” marriages that make a big deal of wifely submission are often much more fragile than they look.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I guess you didn’t read my post.

Sorry to offend you, but I did read your post, I just didn’t see any affirmation of submission or traditional gender roles. Unless when you stated here was meant to be an affirmation of the husband in a leadership role, which I guess would be different from a radically egalitarian one.

I’d question the leadership ability of anyone who didn’t consider the opinions, abilities, and perspective of their constituents. The ideally married couple has so much love, respect, and concern for the other, they put the other first when possible, and they decide TOGETHER major issues.

People love to cherry pick Scripture passages because it feeds their sense of control.
Christ was God, but He allowed His persecution and death to happen because He loved His spouse, the Church which He built, and the people of God. He was not weak in leadership. He was strong, Willing to suffer even unto death.

So, would it be accurate that you DO see the husband as the leader, just not in the sense of a “CEO” or “general” the way many traditionalists see it, but more as a servant-leader in the model of Christ?

I actually do think I agree with that.

 

[pianistclare]

Sorry to offend you, but I did read your post, I just didn’t see any affirmation of submission or traditional gender roles. Unless when you stated here was meant to be an affirmation of the husband in a leadership role, which I guess would be different from a radically egalitarian one.

So, would it be accurate that you DO see the husband as the leader, just not in the sense of a “CEO” or “general” the way many traditionalists see it, but more as a servant-leader in the model of Christ?

I actually do think I agree with that.

Yes.

 

[Walking_Home]

Some other fundamentalists…

Pope Leo XIII
11. Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For “the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”(18)

Homily 20 on Ephesians - Saint John Chrysostom
Then after saying, The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church, he further adds, and He is the Saviour of the body. For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then the Church, that is, both husbands and wives, is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.

Pius XI - CASTI CONNUBII
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

St Thomas Aquinas - Commentary on Ephesians 5
From this he draws the conclusion he intended, saying Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ. As though he said: It is not proper for an organ to rebel against its head in any situation; but as Christ is head of the church in his own way, so a husband is the head of his wife; therefore the wife must be obedient to her husband as the church is subject to Christ. “Shall not my soul be subject to God?” (Ps. 61:2), so also let the wives be to their husbands. “And you shall be under your husband’s power” (Gen. 3:16), in all things which are not contrary to God, for Acts 5 (29) affirms: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

---

Compendium OF THE CATECHISM
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

INTRODUCTION

1. On 11 October 1992, Pope John Paul II presented the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the faithful of the whole world, describing it as a “reference text”[1] for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith. Thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the desire for a catechism of all Catholic doctrine on faith and morals, which had been voiced in 1985 by the extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, came to fulfilment.

Five years later, on 15 August 1997, the Pope promulgated the editio typica of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae and confirmed its fundamental purpose “as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives and prays in her daily life”.[2]

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[ToeInTheWater]

To clarify, I don’t think that “traditional” marriages are necessarily brittle, but I do think that “neo-traditional” marriages that make a big deal of wifely submission are often much more fragile than they look.

Especially because the wives in such marriages, and indeed women in general if the couple is part of a patriarchal sect, are often expected to always be happy and cheerful despite whatever she might really be feeling on the inside. Certainly to outsiders as a way to “protect” the family, but also within the family as well.

 

[Walking_Home]

In response to the OP: outside the context of being mutually subject to one another in totality, they are unprepared to be married until they develop a better understanding of Church teaching.

There will always be factions in the Church that attempt to reinterpret passages out of context to suit their own selfish interests. We should not mistake the notion of a dominant/submissive marital relationship as being the model ordained by God and supported by the Church.

---

 

[hesso12]

Some other fundamentalists…

Pope Leo XIII
11. Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For “the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”(18)

Homily 20 on Ephesians - Saint John Chrysostom
Then after saying, The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church, he further adds, and He is the Saviour of the body. For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then the Church, that is, both husbands and wives, is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.

Pius XI - CASTI CONNUBII
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

St Thomas Aquinas - Commentary on Ephesians 5
From this he draws the conclusion he intended, saying Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ. As though he said: It is not proper for an organ to rebel against its head in any situation; but as Christ is head of the church in his own way, so a husband is the head of his wife; therefore the wife must be obedient to her husband as the church is subject to Christ. “Shall not my soul be subject to God?” (Ps. 61:2), so also let the wives be to their husbands. “And you shall be under your husband’s power” (Gen. 3:16), in all things which are not contrary to God, for Acts 5 (29) affirms: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

agreed,the catholic church says wives are to submit to there husband’s.
Rebellious women will not listen since they were not brought up properly.

 

[hesso12]

10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture:

• Creation order: Man was created first, woman second. "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. " 1 Timothy 2:13
• Creation origin: Man and all creation was created by God directly out of dust, whereas woman was created through the man’s rib. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. " Genesis 2:7 Woman is the only creature not made from dust. Woman derives her origin from Man. "The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. " Genesis 2:22 “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” 1 Corinthians 11:8
• Creation purpose: Woman created for man: “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” 1 Corinthians 11:9
• Man named woman: Adam named the animals and was to rule over them. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. " Genesis 2:19 “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 When Eve was brought to Adam, he named her, showing he was to rule over woman as well. “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”” Genesis 2:23
• Delegation principle: God commanded directly to Adam alone. The prohibition to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was made directly by God to Adam. Adam, in turn relayed what God said to Eve. Eve had not yet been created when God told Adam about the forbidden tree. Eve never actually heard God say this direct, but had to trust Adam’s word on the matter. “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”” Genesis 2:16-18
• Woman sinned first: The devil tempted Eve and she, not the man, was first deceived. Because of this, man put Eve under the headship of Adam. "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. " 1 Timothy 2:14; “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”” Genesis 3:1
• God rebuked Adam first after they ate the forbidden fruit: Although Eve was the logical person for God to rebuke first, God went to Adam, showing that God considered Adam the “head of the family” for both. "Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” " Genesis 3:9
• Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man: “For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7
• Paul pointed Christians to the Mosaic Law that was 1500 earlier and a different culture: 1 Cor.14:34
• Peter pointed Christians to Sarah, 2000 years earlier and a very different culture: 1 Pet. 3:5-6.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

 

[sesenena]

This is what Saint John Paul II said in the Mulieris Dignitatem about submission and marriage:
"24. The text is addressed to the spouses as real women and men. It reminds them of the “ethos” of spousal love which goes back to the divine institution of marriage from the “beginning”. Corresponding to the truth of this institution is the exhortation: “Husbands, love your wives”, love them because of that special and unique bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31). In this love there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he desires that she be “in splendour, without spot or wrinkle” (Eph 5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole “style” of Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the elements of this style in regard to their wives; analogously, all men should do the same in regard to women in every situation. In this way both men and women bring about “the sincere gift of self”.

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ”. The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride".

 

[Xantippe]

Especially because the wives in such marriages, and indeed women in general if the couple is part of a patriarchal sect, are often expected to always be happy and cheerful despite whatever she might really be feeling on the inside. Certainly to outsiders as a way to “protect” the family, but also within the family as well.

Right.

There’s an interesting post (that has unfortunately been pulled) where a Protestant blogger talks about the “complementarian holodeck.” As she explains it, one of the problems with the complementarian vision is that the wife is supposed to offer a smiling face to her husband, no matter what miseries he is dragging her and the family through. (And this is an explicit teaching of the movement, not just some sort of fluke.) Hence, a husband in a complementarian marriage may have very little idea whether or not the marriage or his leadership is a success, because whether or not it is a success, he’s supposed to be receiving exactly the same feedback from his wife–sweet, smiling acquiescence.

Here’s another post by that blogger that I’ve posted here from time to time, which illustrates the issue:

calvinistjaneway.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/15/

As you can see if you read the post, the heavy-duty version of submission that she was attempting left her husband pretty much in the dark about who his wife was and what she wanted.

 

[Xantippe]

I was just reading something very interesting on submission by Sheila Wray Gregoire, the Protestant marriage author.

tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/05/on-submission-wedding-showers-and-choosing-a-mate/

From the post:

"There’s an intellectual problem with the idea: we are to submit to our husbands, EXCEPT in cases of abuse and alcoholism and weird sex stuff. Either the Bible is true or it’s not.
Except that we know that women aren’t supposed to go along with sin.

"So how do we reconcile it?

“I think the problem is that we define submission wrong. We define submission as in going along with someone’s WILL. Letting him make the decisions, and following him in that. But that makes no sense as the definition of submission because of the verse immediately before, in Ephesians 5:21: Submit to one another. How can we all be letting someone else make the decisions? Then no one would make decisions!”

“Maybe submission is about something else. Maybe submission means that we consider other’s welfare before our own. If that’s the case, then we DO always submit–even in cases of alcoholism or adultery or abuse.”

Down in the comments, she gives an example:

"What if he wanted bacon everyday? What if he wanted Coke to wash it down with, every single meal? And what if he were 350 pounds? Should she be serving it to him? What if he decided he wanted to finish everything off with coconut cream pie all the time?

“Obviously not. And so therefore women are supposed to use our brains.”

It wouldn’t be loving to “submissively” enable a morbidly obese husband with meals that are going to send him to an early grave.

 

[hesso12]

“the way Paul teaches” mutual submission is not the way everyone today teaches it. Everything depends on what you mean by “mutual submission.” Some of us put more stress on reciprocity here than others. But even if Paul means complete reciprocity (wives submit to husbands and husbands submit to wives), this does not mean that husbands and wives should submit to each other in the same way. The key is to remember that the relationship between Christ and the church is the pattern for the relationship between husband and wife. Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren’t if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ’s headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.

 

[Walking_Home]

10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture:

• Creation order: Man was created first, woman second. "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. " 1 Timothy 2:13
• Creation origin: Man and all creation was created by God directly out of dust, whereas woman was created through the man’s rib. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. " Genesis 2:7 Woman is the only creature not made from dust. Woman derives her origin from Man. "The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. " Genesis 2:22 “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” 1 Corinthians 11:8
• Creation purpose: Woman created for man: “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” 1 Corinthians 11:9
• Man named woman: Adam named the animals and was to rule over them. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. " Genesis 2:19 “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 When Eve was brought to Adam, he named her, showing he was to rule over woman as well. “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”” Genesis 2:23
• Delegation principle: God commanded directly to Adam alone. The prohibition to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was made directly by God to Adam. Adam, in turn relayed what God said to Eve. Eve had not yet been created when God told Adam about the forbidden tree. Eve never actually heard God say this direct, but had to trust Adam’s word on the matter. “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”” Genesis 2:16-18
• Woman sinned first: The devil tempted Eve and she, not the man, was first deceived. Because of this, man put Eve under the headship of Adam. "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. " 1 Timothy 2:14; “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”” Genesis 3:1
• God rebuked Adam first after they ate the forbidden fruit: Although Eve was the logical person for God to rebuke first, God went to Adam, showing that God considered Adam the “head of the family” for both. "Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” " Genesis 3:9
• Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man: “For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7
• Paul pointed Christians to the Mosaic Law that was 1500 earlier and a different culture: 1 Cor.14:34
• Peter pointed Christians to Sarah, 2000 years earlier and a very different culture: 1 Pet. 3:5-6.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

---

Spinning interpretations – is bound to bloat one with pride – with the constant need to feed the ego – “thanking” God for not being born a woman.

Below --from the Vatican site: Human persons created in the image of God.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

1. The Bible lends no support to the notion of a natural superiority of the masculine over the feminine sex.Their differences notwithstanding, the two sexes enjoy an inherent equality.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[hesso12]

I speak not from pride but for the glory of God.

Vatican Report on sins by gender
Top Sins for Men

1. 
   *]Lust
   *]Gluttony
   *]Sloth
   *]Anger
   *]Pride
   *]Envy
   *]Avarice
   
   Top Sins for Women
   
   1. 
      *]Pride
      *]Envy
      *]Anger
      *]Gluttony
      *]Avarice
      *]Lust
      *]Sloth
      
      Confession
      
      In addition, the report found that 30% of Catholics no longer considered confession to a priest necessary, and 10 per cent even said that it “impeded their personal dialogue with God”.

 

[Walking_Home]

From the Vatican site:

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

THE FAMILY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Article 2
c) The spouses, in the natural complementarity which exists between man and woman, enjoy the same dignity and equal rights regarding the marriage.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001115_family-human-rights_en.html

 

[hesso12]

yes I agree with you on this one,but don’t divorce it is not recommended.