Wives, Submit to your own husbands as to the Lord

[ac_claire]

A man’s oxygen is respect. A woman’s is love. A man would rather live alone than be disrespected.

Love and Respect - Respect is a man’s deepest value

What are some other examples of ways a wife can show respect to her husband? Just day to day things? The book you linked to mentions not criticizing, not saying “I told you so” or “you don’t love me!”…

Follow up question (might need it’s own thread?): what are some concrete examples of how a husband can show love to his wife on a daily basis?

 

[mesurman]

A man’s oxygen is respect. A woman’s is love. A man would rather live alone than be disrespected.

Love and Respect - Respect is a man’s deepest value

You have got that right. I would work my finger to the bone for my wife and kids, actually nearly have on many occasions. However when I do not get the respect and consideration I deserve I get very cranky and that is not a good thing. I would rather live alone than work and work and work and get nothing but the blank stare. Marriage is a 100/100 thing like someone else posted. Both spouses give all to the other and all to the kids, everyone else takes a backseat. Marriage is a lot of hard work. My wife does not submit to me nor I to her. We both submit to the marriage and family.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’d ignore St. Paul. He was a male chauvinist. Notice that only** husbands have to love their wives **and the wives do not have to love them back. Also only wives have to submit to their husbands and the husbands do not submit back. So submit to him, but don’t love him.

Maybe he ment “love” in a bigger context?

 

[buffalo]

What are some other examples of ways a wife can show respect to her husband? Just day to day things? The book you linked to mentions not criticizing, not saying “I told you so” or “you don’t love me!”…

Follow up question (might need it’s own thread?): what are some concrete examples of how a husband can show love to his wife on a daily basis?

Another big example in the book is bringing up that the neighbor has a bigger or better house. It really shuts down the man.

A man is satisfied when he supports and protects his family.

 

[kbrigan]

The key to this is in who you pick for your husband.

Agreed. There is a subtle and, yes, *feminist *elegance to this injunction. Spectifically:

a) At no time has God ever given me (a female-type person) an order. Not once. There has been no time whatsoever in our relationship where my free will has not been 100% in force.

b) There is nothing here telling men and/or husbands that they get to order women around. IThe role the husband is instructed to assume is as Christ to the Church, and one reason the King of Kings is the King of Kings is because he is not an earthly, i.e. merely dominant, King, but a heavenly; i.e. redeeming, sustaining, fostering, guiding, sacrificial one.) The Christian husband is a devoted supporter (see the definition of “husbandry”), not a traditional, earthly “King”. The myth of male dominance is a direct result of the Fall (paraphrasing JPII, here). Christianity ushers in the equality of spouses, not inequality. The instruction to husbands here is specifically to NOT presume to strut around giving dehumanizing orders.

c) Yes, it does come down to trust, and to the necessity that one pick a husband who is absolutely trustworthy, i.e. NOT prone to issuing orders. Historically, men and women have been enemies, and a wife – vulnerable to abuse and marital rape, and having no direct power or access to property – had no way to love her husband while remaining a fully functional human being. Her options were either to allow her spirit to be broken, and thus enter into some sort of Stockholm Syndrome “love”, or to remain whole, and thus remote from this bizarre being she lives with, a strange creature who presumes to think he can violate her humanity and her inate free will. While stuck living in the myth of male dominance, a woman’s only options are to hate (or feel nothing for) her husband, in the same way a slave would hate or feel ambivilance for a “master”. It is only through the new equality ushered in with Christ that a woman gained any hope of actually being able to love her husband. This new idea, that a woman must actually be able to TRUST a MAN?! is as bizarre, as earth-shattering as any other Christian innovation.

 

[FMLJoliecouer]

When we submit to our Lord…it doesn’t mean we are being a doormat…it means putting the Lord first…
that way we are happy and so is the Lord…
When we put our husbands’ needs first…then we try to understand him and then put his needs first…and we end up being happy too…He is expected to do the same. However, I do feel that most women have to accept that men may need a little more help than women in figuring out what women need…not because they are dumb, but because women tend to expect their husbands to read their minds, whereas men are much more straight forward about their needs.
I wish I had done this in my first marriage and it might have survived.

 

[Orchanian]

I’ve been married almost 30 years, and I have a degree in woman’s studies. The biggest thing I had to overcome early in my marriage was the need to be right. If you are always on the lookout for “oppression” I can guarantee that you will find it. That doesn’t mean it’s there. Or maybe if it is, naming it as such doesn’t always lead to a positive result.

Submit to your husband as to the Lord. The key to this is to love the Lord and your husband more than yourself. When you truly love someone (as a Christian), your greatest desire is their salvation. So all that you do is directed to that. It isn’t about who cleans the house (we had that argument) or who gets more spending money (been there, too), or any other thing related to this world. It is about what’s going to get each of you (and your children if you are so blessed) to heaven.

If you love the Lord, you will sacrifice for Him. Same for your husband. What does he need? Is it something that is acceptable to God? Can you provide it? Then do it. For example, my husband and I disagreed about cleaning house. We went back and forth. He tried the argument that it was woman’s work. For some reason, that didn’t work (go figure…). What did work was his stating that he really really hated cleaning house. I didn’t, I just didn’t think that, as a woman, I should let him get away with that. That was the wrong attitude. It should have been more loving to him. What we ended up deciding was that I would clean the house and he could never (and I mean NEVER) complain about how it looked. That was my gift to him (and his to me). Did I submit to him. Not in the “feminist” definition where he forced something on me that I didn’t choose to do. Did I let him have what he wanted? Yes. It was the right thing to do. Is it “fair”? That’s irrelevant. When you love someone, you don’t worry about what’s fair. You simply give to the other person what they need. Always remember that what they need will be different from what you need. If you can give what is needed, you should. (Even if they don’t provide what you need.)

Kimberly Hahn has written two good books on being a godly wife: Chosen and Cherished and Grace and Gifted. You might find them helpful.

I have found that having a strong relationship with God makes it easier to be a good and godly wife. I am so at peace and filled with joy, even when things aren’t going well. Every good marriage has three parties: the husband, wife, and God. Always remember that.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Agreed. There is a subtle and, yes, *feminist *elegance to this injunction. Spectifically:

a) At no time has God ever given me (a female-type person) an order. Not once. There has been no time whatsoever in our relationship where my free will has not been 100% in force.

b) There is nothing here telling men and/or husbands that they get to order women around. IThe role the husband is instructed to assume is as Christ to the Church, and one reason the King of Kings is the King of Kings is because he is not an earthly, i.e. merely dominant, King, but a heavenly; i.e. redeeming, sustaining, fostering, guiding, sacrificial one.) The Christian husband is a devoted supporter (see the definition of “husbandry”), not a traditional, earthly “King”. The myth of male dominance is a direct result of the Fall (paraphrasing JPII, here). Christianity ushers in the equality of spouses, not inequality. The instruction to husbands here is specifically to NOT presume to strut around giving dehumanizing orders.

c) Yes, it does come down to trust, and to the necessity that one pick a husband who is absolutely trustworthy, i.e. NOT prone to issuing orders. Historically, men and women have been enemies, and a wife – vulnerable to abuse and marital rape, and having no direct power or access to property – had no way to love her husband while remaining a fully functional human being. Her options were either to allow her spirit to be broken, and thus enter into some sort of Stockholm Syndrome “love”, or to remain whole, and thus remote from this bizarre being she lives with, a strange creature who presumes to think he can violate her humanity and her inate free will. While stuck living in the myth of male dominance, a woman’s only options are to hate (or feel nothing for) her husband, in the same way a slave would hate or feel ambivilance for a “master”. It is only through the new equality ushered in with Christ that a woman gained any hope of actually being able to love her husband. This new idea, that a woman must actually be able to TRUST a MAN?! is as bizarre, as earth-shattering as any other Christian innovation.

I’m sorry for your pain.

 

[sskyking]

It is in this discussion that you see a key difference between the “Protestant” approach and the “Catholic” approach to scripture. (I’m a convert and have seen/heard both sides)

This particular scripture is too often interpreted the same way that Liberals misinterpret the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution… by stopping at the first punctuation mark and ignoring the rest of the statement.

The first amendment as usually quoted by liberals: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first amendment as actually written (note the underlined portion which was missing from the above): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Similarly, most fundamentalists, leave out the “husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church…” portion of Ephesians chapter 5. Holy Scripture is only “Holy” when it is taken in context, and if you are going to quote Ephesians 5: 21 - 24 without also quoting verses. 25 - 30, you are misrepresenting scripture no less than Bernie Madoff deceived his investors! The wife of verses 21 - 24 has nothing to fear from the husband of verses 25 - 30… but the husband who fails to live up to verses 25 - 30 has much more to fear than his wife!

 

[sskyking]

You can’t but that really is the whole point.

Nonsense, of course you can, and so can the husband live up to his responsibility.

It’s just that pride keeps too many of us from even trying!

We have to stop “cherry picking” scripture and try to understand it both in the total context of how it is written but also with understanding the nature of the cultural times in which it was written!

We are trying to interpret 1st century writings as if they were written in a 21st century culture. This approach distorts the interpretation and fatally handicaps our ability to live out the fundamental message it was meant to convey.

Why do we believe in a living God, but assume that his words stopped in 100 AD? Whether the world was created in 7 days or a million years, does not change the central message of a loving creator who time and again pursues His loving relationship with His creation. We dwell on nit-picked details and miss the loving God and His Son!

 

[sskyking]

I’d ignore St. Paul. He was a male chauvinist. Notice that only husbands have to love their wives and the wives do not have to love them back. Also only wives have to submit to their husbands and the husbands do not submit back. So submit to him, but don’t love him.

Maybe the problem is yours?

You label a man who lived 2,000 years before you based not on what he did say, but on what he didn’t say? How would you like to be judged by that standard?

Ignore St. Paul?

Jesus didn’t… He confronted him on the road and changed his life. He gave him a mission and the apostles accepted him as one of them. St. Paul took the gospel to the Gentiles. Without him, there probably wouldn’t be a church.

IGNORE him???

 

[FMLJoliecouer]

It is in this discussion that you see a key difference between the “Protestant” approach and the “Catholic” approach to scripture. (I’m a convert and have seen/heard both sides)

This particular scripture is too often interpreted the same way that Liberals misinterpret the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution… by stopping at the first punctuation mark and ignoring the rest of the statement.

The first amendment as usually quoted by liberals: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first amendment as actually written (note the underlined portion which was missing from the above): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Similarly, most fundamentalists, leave out the “husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church…” portion of Ephesians chapter 5. Holy Scripture is only “Holy” when it is taken in context, and if you are going to quote Ephesians 5: 21 - 24 without also quoting verses. 25 - 30, you are misrepresenting scripture no less than Bernie Madoff deceived his investors! The wife of verses 21 - 24 has nothing to fear from the husband of verses 25 - 30… but the husband who fails to live up to verses 25 - 30 has much more to fear than his wife!

When we become less concerned with labels…Catholic … Protestant…Liberal …Fundamentalist…
…I think then we will find the truth… God’s truths
It seems that I have agreed with most people on this thread…and all have differing views and most are from Catholics…myself…I guess I am a struggling Christian…thinking of converting to Catholicism…but don’t necessarily think of myself as either Protestant or Catholic…
just my two cents…

Peace and Joy

 

[sskyking]

When we become less concerned with labels…Catholic … Protestant…Liberal …Fundamentalist…
…I think then we will find the truth… God’s truths
It seems that I have agreed with most people on this thread…and all have differing views and most are from Catholics…myself…I guess I am a struggling Christian…thinking of converting to Catholicism…but don’t necessarily think of myself as either Protestant or Catholic…
just my two cents…

Peace and Joy

Unless you have a point of reference, you cannot read a map, and therefore cannot find anything!

Labels, while sometimes being too broad and prejudicial, still have some value. To pretend that there are not certain predilictions among people of various orientations is to ignore reality.

There truly are fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals, between Catholics and Protestants and between Fundamentalists and those who accept the Bible as a living word that has to be interpreted in the context of time. To pretend otherwise isn’t going to bring anybody any closer to “truth”, but only further away. As AA says, first you have to admit there is a problem.

 

[Feanor2]

I tend to think of it more as the Father is the spiritual head of the family regarding faith and such.

I don’t believe that either parent has a more authoritative voice on temporal issues.

But maybe that’s because I am a bit more “churchy” than my wife!

 

[Ljrm18]

Hi, new to the forums and I hope to learn a lot from the people who’ve been here awhile. I am engaged to be married this next year. I want to have a biblical marriage, but I am having some trouble understanding the dynamics of Ephesians 5 and Titus 2. The more I think about it the more uncomfortable it makes me, I think because while I do understand what I’m reading, I am unsure how this plays out in everyday life.

How can I be obedient and submissive to my future husband without turning into a doormat? I am not a feminist, but I’m not a shrinking violet either on the other hand. What does submission look like in the practical, everyday life of a modern marriage?

If any of you ladies (and men) who’ve been married awhile have any other helpful advice for an almost newlywed, that would be great too.

Hello and congratulations on your engagement!

I’m very much like you, and had a difficult time with this as well. I’ve never been the submissive kind, and serving my husband felt like I was lowering myself.

However after we had gone to our pre-marriage classes, and a couple of lectures, (and a year of marriage), the best explanation I can give is that when you serve your husband, you are showing him an act of love. And because of that act of love, he will serve you back and show you an act of love.

I’ve never believed that “obedience” means he gets to boss you around and make you do what he wants. I think obedience is allowing him as the head of your household to lead you as his family. Whether in decisions or in actions. (Another one I struggle with).

As a small example, I try to make dinner each evening before he comes home from school. And he does the laundry. His habit seemed to naturally evolve from me doing an act of love for him. Although I have to say, this is really making me reevaluate what I do for him as acts of love. I’ll have to get on that.

God Bless you.
Laura W.

 

[FMLJoliecouer]

Unless you have a point of reference, you cannot read a map, and therefore cannot find anything!

Labels, while sometimes being too broad and prejudicial, still have some value. To pretend that there are not certain predilictions among people of various orientations is to ignore reality.

There truly are fundamental differences between Conservatives and Liberals, between Catholics and Protestants and between Fundamentalists and those who accept the Bible as a living word that has to be interpreted in the context of time. To pretend otherwise isn’t going to bring anybody any closer to “truth”, but only further away. As AA says, first you have to admit there is a problem.

I totally messed up the point I was trying to make in my desire to be understood…
Forgive me… I do not see the differences in opinions on this issue as stemming from one being a Protestant or a Catholic a liberal or fundamentalist…I see differing opinions among Catholics and differing opinions among Protestants on this issue and I don’t see myself as fitting into either catagory at this point. I agree with what you just said about labels having some value, but like my Priest said to me when I first started seeing him …Jesus was not a Catholic
I laughed and said…Father…Jesus wasnt even a Christian.

 

[sskyking]

I totally messed up the point I was trying to make in my desire to be understood…
Forgive me… I do not see the differences in opinions on this issue as stemming from one being a Protestant or a Catholic a liberal or fundamentalist…I see differing opinions among Catholics and differing opinions among Protestants on this issue and I don’t see myself as fitting into either catagory at this point. I agree with what you just said about labels having some value, but like my Priest said to me when I first started seeing him …Jesus was not a Catholic
I laughed and said…Father…Jesus wasnt even a Christian.

It’s a little of both. First, there are some fundamental differences that stem from your starting point. We are, at least in part, the product of our upbringing. Then there are differences that stem from our own responses to that upbringing. In addition, there are differences that stem from our exposure to those of different upbringings. There are a lot of confused Catholics out there who don’t even really understand what the Church teaches… partially because they had parents or teachers who didn’t really understand, but also partially because they’ve fallen prey to the false propaganda of people of other faiths or denominations who’ve tried to sway them.

There is a LOT of false teaching about Catholic beliefs in the Protestant world. I know, I’ve been there! One thing about the Catholic Church is that it doesn’t tend to make a dogmatic statement about something until or unless there is a major dispute about it… otherwise it generally takes it as “accepted belief”. That’s why the virgin birth wasn’t “codified” until hundreds of years later… it was so generally accepted nobody even thought it needed to be declared!

The sad fact is that there are some Protestant “churches” out there that talk about Catholics the way the Nazis talked about Jews in 1938. I live in the Carolinas and I’ve heard it. Those are the people we need to be praying for.

 

[ac_claire]

Similarly, most fundamentalists, leave out the “husbands, love your wife as Christ loved the church…” portion of Ephesians chapter 5. Holy Scripture is only “Holy” when it is taken in context, and if you are going to quote Ephesians 5: 21 - 24 without also quoting verses. 25 - 30, you are misrepresenting scripture no less than Bernie Madoff deceived his investors! The wife of verses 21 - 24 has nothing to fear from the husband of verses 25 - 30… but the husband who fails to live up to verses 25 - 30 has much more to fear than his wife!

Agreed. This is a generalization but it is, generally, very true in my experience. The wife’s part is emphasized far more than the husband’s among the fundamentalists I know. I’ve seen some competition among women, as to who is the more obedient and sometimes it does border on subservient and enabling of abusive behavior by their husbands. The role of the husband is almost never stressed with this kind of vehemence.

I think there are two main reasons for this…first of all IMO it’s sort of a natural backlash against the feminism that’s infected all points of the culture for the past 40 years or so. Also, the fundamentalists I know look beyond Ephesians 5, all the way back to Genesis. The woman was created for the man, not the other way around, and this principle is applied to every moment of the day in a marriage, to every situation. And since these are the plain words of scripture and they believe in sola scriptura…that’s it! lol There is some wisdom to this, IMO. I’ve learned a lot from these ladies but they just don’t have the whole picture or the context of the Church in which to see it so IMO it’s no surprise the vision is slightly off-kilter.

 

[Rascalking]

With all respect due to St. Paul, I think he was writing at at different time and place.

I want to have a biblical marriage as well, but I do NOT want someone to submit to anyone but God, certianly not me.

I don’t even like it when women take their husbands name…I guess I’ve always been a bit quirky…

 

[sskyking]

With all respect due to St. Paul, I think he was writing at at different time and place.

I want to have a biblical marriage as well, but I do NOT want someone to submit to anyone but God, certianly not me.

I don’t even like it when women take their husbands name…I guess I’ve always been a bit quirky…

Yes, he was writing at a different time and place, but once again, you are missing the rest of the passage. If the husband loves the wife, as Christ loved the Church… then there is no problem. The reality of this teaching is that BOTH the husband and the wife are being challenged to get into a competition of outdoing the other in love and devotion!

The bottom line is that God intended the man and the woman to become “one flesh”, with our purpose being to serve the plan of God. I guess the better question is, does this argument have ANYthing to do with salvation? If not, then it’s only about whether or not you enjoy the best relationships you can have.

Let us not forget this key point. Jesus, was equal to God… He didn’t want to die on the cross, but prayed “Thy will be done” and went to the cross obediently. Because He did, we all have a chance at eternal life.

Following this scripture is not going to guarantee you heaven, and ignoring it is not going to send you to hell. But if it’s pride that causes you to reject it, that pride may very well do the job!