women's authority in the church

[LucyLight]

Also this need for a leader when two people are involved seems really silly.
We are only talking about two people not a group of people! Two mature adults in a covenant relationship don’t **need **one to lead.

Btw, I’m not calling people who want the husband to lead silly just the idea that there is a need for this.

 

[TrueLight]

As linguists have pointed out, the words that Paul uses have changed in meaning. Modern man hears them frm his context. We have to hear them from Paul’s first century Jewish context. In Jewish culture, wives were not submissive to husbands in the way that many Christian cultures have insisted. In fact, in the Deuterocanonical law, a husband could be stoned for abusing his wife. Wives submitted to the protection of their husbands, not to their control. Paul speaks to this Jewish understanding of male female relationships. That’s why he juxtaposes that husbands must be like Christ to the wife. To submit to the protection of the husband who does not respond as a protector is not very practical.

Maybe it is specifically because of the Jewish context that Paul felt he had to present a different view.

I know it’s hard to stomach this type of teaching in the times we live in, but I don’t think there is any way around it.

I didn’t want to bring this up because I don’t think we should look at women submitting to their husbands as punishment. As I said, it is a beautiful thing, but here is Genesis 3:16.

“To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

We still bring forth children in great pain. I can personally attest to that.

Btw, I’m not calling people who want the husband to lead silly just the idea that there is a need for this.

Like there really is a great difference between calling someone silly and their ideas silly.

 

[Baelor]

Like there really is a great difference between calling someone silly and their ideas silly.

There is. Just as there is a difference between judging a person and judging their actions.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Maybe it is specifically because of the Jewish context that Paul felt he had to present a different view.

I know it’s hard to stomach this type of teaching in the times we live in, but I don’t think there is any way around it.

I didn’t want to bring this up because I don’t think we should look at women submitting to their husbands as punishment. As I said, it is a beautiful thing, but here is Genesis 3:16.

We still bring forth children in great pain. I can personally attest to that.

Well, I don’t have any intention of stirring the pot, but maybe the reason it’s hard to stomach some of this is because it was written in another time and culture, and it was directed at those in that particular time and place. Like his verses on slaves and masters. That makes my stomach turn today, but I understand it (as I hope everyone else does, too) to be relevant to that time and culture, but not today. To truly understand what is in the Bible, we need to keep things in a certain context and that includes who wrote the verse, who they were addressing (the converts in Corinth, Ephesus, etc) and what their particular culture was pre-conversion, and why they were stating what they did.

 

[TrueLight]

Well, I don’t have any intention of stirring the pot, but maybe the reason it’s hard to stomach some of this is because it was written in another time

Well, you’re not stirring my pot…just because I have a black avatar.

Is it an injustice for a wife to lovingly submit to her husband?

 

[catholicmamajoy]

Well, you’re not stirring my pot…just because I have a black avatar.

Is it an injustice for a wife to lovingly submit to her husband?

Oh gosh, I didn’t even think of that! I meant by stirring the pot to be starting up another discussion on St Paul’s statements about husband and wives and slaves and masters.

I was on another thread a while back and posted what I thought was a wonderful, in depth response to someone who said that “well, the slaves and masters thing was back in biblical times and of course we know that’s not what we do today, but, the submission thing holds true…”. I had recently attended the conference I mentioned in an earlier post and had used all sorts of info from that to compose my reply, but before that person could answer back, the whole thread got removed and that individual got banned or actually removed, since they had just opened their account that day. It was frustrating!

Anyway, I don’t think it’s an injustice for a wife to decide to lovingly submit to her husband, nor do I think it’s a sin for a Catholic couple (or any couple, for that matter) to have an equal partnership in a marriage. Yes, it can be done…hubby and I have been married 20 years this summer and we have a marriage partnership. Some things he excels in, others I do. We split it up and make big decisions together. Oops, I’m headed off on a rabbit trail now, so I will get back to the topic at hand…which will lead me to be called at best, a cafeteria Catholic , but I believe what Paul wrote about women and submission and head coverings are relevant to that culture in which he wrote. If a woman wants to be “submissive” to her husband, fine and if she wants to cover her head anytime, that’s fine, too. But to not do either doesn’t make one rebellious, a sinner, or condemned for all eternity. If it did, I think Jesus would’ve spoken about it in the Gospels.

 

[Baelor]

Is it an injustice for a wife to lovingly submit to her husband?

That is a strawman argument. I do not think anyone was claiming that it is immoral for a wife to submit to her husband, but rather that it would be morally unacceptable to compel a wife to submit to her husband in the modern sense of the word.

 

[TrueLight]

That is a strawman argument. I do not think anyone was claiming that it is immoral for a wife to submit to her husband, but rather that it would be morally unacceptable to compel a wife to submit to her husband in the modern sense of the word.

Nope. I don’t do strawmen (another CAF favorite term).

My question was specifically to catholicmamajoy 's comments comparing Paul’s writings on submission to slavery.

 

[nickybr38]

Also this need for a leader when two people are involved seems really silly.
We are only talking about two people not a group of people! Two mature adults in a covenant relationship don’t **need **one to lead.

Btw, I’m not calling people who want the husband to lead silly just the idea that there is a need for this.

There is a need to have ONE as the ultimate leader when very difficult decisions that neither can agree on arise.

The two can work in harmony much of the time but even though your vows make you ‘one’ there will be times when very big life issues cause very big disagreements and unless one partner is willing to step back and let the other partner make the final decision (despite their misgivings) these big life decisions will only lead to strife.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course. And frankly, I think that people who object to the idea of a wife submitting are not realizing that the husband is to love his wife as God loves the Church. Imagine that! And they are both to submit to each other, which deals with the problem of having a dictator for a husband.

No it doesn’t.
Because the Pauline passages make clear that the husband in the one with the divinely sanctioned authority. Not the woman.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not that you were asking me, but I want to be on record as approving of male headship in marriage. I believe the wife should be submissive to the husband.

Do you believe that there are any limits to the husband’s authority?
Are there any times when a wife would have authority instead?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Honestly all this fuss over who has ‘authority’ but what is authority really? Those in control are only in control because those who submit ALLOW them to be in control? So those in control aren’t really in control in the first place, they are merely granted a position of being allowed to make pertinent decisions because those who submit realize that things run more smoothly when one person has the final say.

I would say, the ideal situation is when those in authority listen to those who submit to that authority - but ultimately make the final decision based on their better judgment.

There is a reason such sayings as;
Too many cooks, too little kitchen.
exist.

Every tyranny in history (and there have been a lot) disproves you.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

There is a need to have ONE as the ultimate leader when very difficult decisions that neither can agree on arise.

The two can work in harmony much of the time but even though your vows make you ‘one’ there will be times when very big life issues cause very big disagreements and unless one partner is willing to step back and let the other partner make the final decision (despite their misgivings) these big life decisions will only lead to strife.

Well…in our marriage, that decision (when an agreement cannot be made) generally goes to the one with more knowledge, experience, interest, etc, in what the decision is. The recent times that this has occurred has been in 2007 (I made that call regarding an educational choice with a child…he wanted one approach, I thought another was best) and in 2010 (hubby made that call on a vehicle…for me, paid for with money I inherited. I wanted a certain vehicle, he knew from looking it over at the dealership and the reading the indepth reviews we should get something else). I have a better knowledge on what educational options are best for our children and he knows his cars and trucks.

 

[nickybr38]

Well…in our marriage, that decision (when an agreement cannot be made) generally goes to the one with more knowledge, experience, interest, etc, in what the decision is. The recent times that this has occurred has been in 2007 (I made that call regarding an educational choice with a child…he wanted one approach, I thought another was best) and in 2010 (hubby made that call on a vehicle…for me, paid for with money I inherited. I wanted a certain vehicle, he knew from looking it over at the dealership and the reading the indepth reviews we should get something else). I have a better knowledge on what educational options are best for our children and he knows his cars and trucks.

And if a situation arose where you possessed equal knowledge and there was no clear ‘better’ person to make the choice? How would you resolve then? Especially if the situation at hand was an extremely heated one?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Honestly I’m a pretty good leader too, but if I’m honest with myself I prefer NOT to lead. As good as I can be at taking control when I need to, I sigh with relief when there’s a male present who can take over the situation.

I think submission is a beautiful thing too. Healthy submission, of course. Submitting to an abusive man would, of course, not be wise or good.

To be honest, all this talk of how women are supposed to be submissive reminds me of the Domestic Discipline Christians and the Goreans.

If all (or at least most) women are naturally submissive (a premise I personally don’t agree with) then our ancestors were right and only men should have the right to vote, own property in their own name, control where they live, etc.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

And if a situation arose where you possessed equal knowledge and there was no clear ‘better’ person to make the choice? How would you resolve then? Especially if the situation at hand was an extremely heated one?

You know, I really don’t see that happening with us, based on our very different interests and knowledge. But I will tell you this, if we did exactly what St Paul said to in Ephesians, it would still be a stalemate…you know why? First, St Paul said to submit to each other. Then he said the wife should submit to her husband, then he called for the husband to give himself up for his wife. So, if we both did what St Paul said to, we’d be back at square one, since I’d be passing it off to hubby in “submission” and he’d be giving it back to me by “giving himself up”.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Maybe it is specifically because of the Jewish context that Paul felt he had to present a different view.

I know it’s hard to stomach this type of teaching in the times we live in, but I don’t think there is any way around it.

I didn’t want to bring this up because I don’t think we should look at women submitting to their husbands as punishment. As I said, it is a beautiful thing, but here is Genesis 3:16.

We still bring forth children in great pain. I can personally attest to that.

Like there really is a great difference between calling someone silly and their ideas silly.

Men ruling over women is specifically listed as part of the punishment.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Nope. I don’t do strawmen (another CAF favorite term).

My question was specifically to catholicmamajoy 's comments comparing Paul’s writings on submission to slavery.

Its a good comparison.
Saint Paul commands both slaves and wives to obey their masters/husbands.

 

[nickybr38]

You know, I really don’t see that happening with us, based on our very different interests and knowledge. But I will tell you this, if we did exactly what St Paul said to in Ephesians, it would still be a stalemate…you know why? First, St Paul said to submit to each other. Then he said the wife should submit to her husband, then he called for the husband to give himself up for his wife. So, if we both did what St Paul said to, we’d be back at square one, since I’d be passing it off to hubby in “submission” and he’d be giving it back to me by “giving himself up”.

I think if the two are humble things can work.

I think what St. Paul is calling for is the perfect solution. The wife looks only at the husband and cares for all of his needs. The husband looks only at the wife and cares for her needs and thus the two act as one, except instead of caring for themselves they care for each other. Perfect harmony.

I suppose I’m looking at this through the lens that someone is going to be stubborn and prideful and there needs to be a system in place to combat that pride but I know there are mature people out there who don’t need that system.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

I think if the two are humble things can work.

I think what St. Paul is calling for is the perfect solution. The wife looks only at the husband and cares for all of his needs. The husband looks only at the wife and cares for her needs and thus the two act as one, except instead of caring for themselves they care for each other. Perfect harmony.

I suppose I’m looking at this through the lens that someone is going to be stubborn and prideful and there needs to be a system in place to combat that pride but I know there are mature people out there who don’t need that system.

There are days that I think hubby and I fit the description of mature and humble. Then there are other days… Thankfully, we tend to be the “first description” when we’ve had to make the decisions that neither can agree on. We are both pretty strong-willed, but by the grace of God, we’re puzzle pieces that fit together.