palosaari@tiger.oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) (08/17/89)
I'm currently engaged in a discussion over whether or not the man should make the crucial desicians in a Christian marriage when there can be no agreement. My opponent argues that those passages stating that the wife should obey the husband were made for a certain church and a certain time only. Could anyone point me to some relavent passages on the subject. (I want to learn the truth- not just support my own view, so passages stating there should be equal descision making or that there are certain passages for certain times and people would be helpful too.) [There are certainly passages saying that in Christ there is no male or female, e.g. Gal 3:28. Typical passages talking about wives submitting to the husband are Eph 5:22 ff. and I Pet 3:1. It's a bit hard to argue that the authors originally meant these as advice for a specific church. Particularly Eph seems clearly to be a presentation of the author's general concept of marriage. About the best you can do if you want to adopt a different view is to say that the most general principle is Eph 5:21: Be subject to one another. One could argue that the wife's submission to the husband is simply one example of this, but that fully carrying out the concept of mutual dependency requires the husband to be subject to the wife as well. Indeed I Cor 7:4 does show that in some ways husbands should be subject to wives. Based on statements such as Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21, and I Cor 7:4, one could argue that mutual submission of husbands and wives is a reasonable extension of Paul's ideas. But in all honesty, one has to admit that it is an extension. It seems nearly certain that Paul accepted the existing social structures of his time, including an assymmetrical concept of marriage, slavery, etc. It is very hard to believe that the advice in Eph 5:22ff was intended only for the specific situation of Ephesus. Those who would adopt the model of mutual submission of husband and wife have to make a slightly more abstract argument. They would claim that there is a sort of implicit dependence of all of Paul's advice on the particular social structure in which he lived. When ours are different, we should attempt to apply his principles to our social structures, rather than keeping his advice unchanged. What makes this principle dangerous is that we need to be in a position to judge social structures. We can't afford to allow the structure of Christian marriage to be dictated entirely by what our society is doing. Unfortunately, the NT simply doesn't tell us how to judge alternative social structures. So one has to decide whether the fact Jesus, Paul, etc., accept the structures of their time indicates that we are bound to them for all time, or whether it indicates that they simply didn't consider the issue of changing the society. One can argue that most of the NT was written from a perspective in which the Final Judgement was expected almost immediately, so redesigning the society simply wouldn't have made sense to them. As I'm sure you know, Christians come down on both sides of this issue. Many believe that the fact that Paul accepted an assymmetrical view of marriage means that we should too. Others believe that change is possible, and indeed that passages such as Gal 3:28, Eph 5:21, and I Cor 7:4 would support a change in our concept of marriage to a more symmetrical model. Unfortunately I know of no convincing argument on either side. Those who believe that we must continue to use the social forms endorsed in the NT believe that anything else denies the authority of Scripture, and ultimately God. Those who believe that change is permissible believe that the alternative view turns the NT into a new Law. Scriptures can be cited that warn against both dangers. It seems to be a basic difference in approach. One thing however is clearly not permissible. That is to abandon the concept of submission in marriage, and to accept the all too common situation where husband and wife really want to continue to be autonomous. If you are going to adopt a symmetrical view, you should do it not by abandoning the idea that the wife submits to the husband, but by adding the idea that the husband also submits equally to the wife. --clh]
iba@ics.uci.edu (Wayne Iba) (08/19/89)
Many people get bent out of shape about this submission thing in marraiges. Especially in light of how women have been treated in our society and the recent awareness brought about by the feminist movement. I would like to point out that while the wife's lot seems tough, the responsibility on the husband is even greater. Paul says "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her .... In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies" (Eph 5:25-28). If a husband takes this command to heart and practices it, I believe that the wife's submission to the husband never becomes a stumbling block. --wayne (iba@ics.uci.edu)
darin@decwrl.dec.com (Darin Johnson) (08/24/89)
In article <Aug.19.03.46.05.1989.17145@athos.rutgers.edu> iba@ics.uci.edu (Wayne Iba) writes: > >Many people get bent out of shape about this submission thing in marraiges. >Especially in light of how women have been treated in our society and the >recent awareness brought about by the feminist movement. I would propose that a higher commandment would be to love your spouse. The attitude of "you're my wife and you'll do what I say" shows a lack of love. If a man and wife love each other, they will submit to each other. Arguments about who shall submit to who, etc., are rendered rather pointless if the couple loves and respects each other. Granted, there are occasions where an impasse is reached and it is difficult to tell who should submit to who (ie, the wife has a new job in another state, but the husband is perfectly content with his job - a major stumbling block). In these cases, the person who ends up on the 'bad end of the deal' should not be discouraged for himself, but be glad for the other spouse (because they love each other). The advice (commands?) given by Paul are often a good measure of a Christian life. For example, if a wife does not submit to her husband (or vice-versa), or the husband does not love his wife as himself, this is a pretty good sign that one or the other spouse is not living as a Christian should. Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com) We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
plb@violin.att.com (Peter L Berghold) (08/27/89)
[This is a contribution to the discussion on whether a wife should submit to her husband. The particular set of articles quoted here (quotations omitted) were Wayne Iba, iba@ics.uci.edu, whose position was that the wife's submission to the husband is not a stumbling block when you look at how the husband is instructed to act., and Darin Johnson, laic!nova.laic!darin@decwrl.dec.com, who recommended a balanced relationship, where they submit to each other. He particularly suggested that the attitude of "you're my wife and you'll do what I say" shows a lack love. --clh] Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Bible command a wife to "submit to you Husband *as unto the Lord*' ? To me this means that a wife is to obey her husband NOT as a chattel but give her husband the respect he *earns* by being a Godly head of household. Certainly if a husband orders his wife to do something that is unscriptural she is under no obligation to obey him. Likewise if he is just ordering her about out of orneryness. The Bible further commands husbands to "love your wife as Christ loves the Church.." . It works both ways. If a husband is loving his wife the way that Christ loves the Church he is not ordering her about like a chattel. He is also giving her the respect that she needs and deserves. After all husbands, your wife can do something you can't: carry a baby for nine months and give birth to it! :-) A fellow servant in Christ, Pete Peter L. Berghold, AT&T, HRSAG, UUCP: att!violin!plb
christian@aramis.rutgers.edu (08/27/89)
I am reluctant to post articles that are so full of widgets that we spend more time figure out who said what than getting any actual enlightenment on the subject. In this light, I have decided to summarize a posting from Wayne Iba commenting in detail on a response to him by Darin Johnson, rather than post it. Wayne seems to be concerned that people may have misinterpreted his intent. Darin responded to a posting by Wayne on the issue of the husband as leader. In Darin's response, his primary objection was to the attitude "you're my wife and you'll do what I say". This is far from what Wayne was suggesting in the original message. Indeed the primary content of Wayne's posting was an explanation that in light of the things said about the responsibility of the husband, this attitude was impossible. I'm not entirely sure that Darin was attributing this attitude to Wayne in the first place, but I can see how the posting could give that impression. It's fairly common for people to start out responding to an issue raised in a posting, but end up saying things that aren't specifically in response to it. In this case, it is sometimes useful to draw an explicit line between where you are responding to the original posting and where you are making more general comments. As must be obvious to everyone, there are two very different approaches to this issue in the Christian community. I do not want to say that there is no difference between the positions. But I would also like to make sure that we don't exaggerate the difference. Responsible spokesmen for the position that the husband is the head of the marriage do not have in mind some sort of arbitrary despot. If the husband is supposed to represent Christ, one must recall Christ's washing of his disciples' feet at the Last Supper. I myself prefer a more symmetrical concept of marriage, as I mentioned in my comments on the original posting. However I also respect those who believe the NT calls them to a model with the husband as leader. As long as there is a proper understanding of the leader as servant, this position is not as far away as it looks.
btong@cipc1.dayton.ncr.com (Bonnie Tong) (08/27/89)
In article <Aug.17.05.13.46.1989.15285@athos.rutgers.edu> palosaari@tiger.oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) writes: >I'm currently engaged in a discussion over whether or not the man should >make the crucial desicians in a Christian marriage when there can be no agreement. ^^^^ Not if his spelling is like yours! :-) Okay, mister, before I go off in a roaring flame, I want to know if this is for real.(?) Since you did not indicate that you were "just kidding", I am assuming that you meant what you said. If so, I've got news for you - I am a woman and I have only one Lord and Master! Crucial decisions? And you would be so cruel as to leave her out of that decision? No agreement? So what you are saying is that if a man is so stubborn that he cannot bend to see his wife's viewpoint (or he just is of the opinion that she has no brains :-( ) it is okay and "backed by God" for him to just totally ignore her feelings? I think not! (NOTE: I know that it may be the wife who is stubborn, so don't say it.) The moderator of this group did a fine job in his response. *I* could see that he was trying to say that in a Christian marriage BOTH halves need to "submit" to each other for the good of the marriage. (I absolutely hate the word "submit" when talking about a wife and husband! I will not "submit" to any man, only to God. ) >My opponent argues that those passages stating that the wife >should obey the husband were made for a certain church and a certain time >only. Could anyone point me to some relavent passages on the subject. >(I want to learn the truth- not just support my own view, so passages >stating there should be equal descision making or that there are certain >passages for certain times and people would be helpful too.) In one sentence you are talking about opposition and argument. Then in the next you say that you want relevant passages on the subject so that you might learn the truth? Who's truth? {from the moderator...} >[There are certainly passages saying that in Christ there is no male >or female, e.g. Gal 3:28. Typical passages talking about wives >submitting to the husband are Eph 5:22 ff. and I Pet 3:1. It's a bit >hard to argue that the authors originally meant these as advice for a >specific church. Particularly Eph seems clearly to be a presentation >of the author's general concept of marriage. About the best you can ^^^Bravo! The *author's* concept... >do if you want to adopt a different view is to say that the most >general principle is Eph 5:21: Be subject to one another. One could ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Agreed! >argue that the wife's submission to the husband is simply one example >of this, but that fully carrying out the concept of mutual dependency >requires the husband to be subject to the wife as well. ^^^^^^^^Thank you! <much deleted text> {moderator continues...} >One thing however is clearly not permissible. That is to abandon the >concept of submission in marriage, and to accept the all too common >situation where husband and wife really want to continue to be >autonomous. If you are going to adopt a symmetrical view, you should >do it not by abandoning the idea that the wife submits to the husband, >but by adding the idea that the husband also submits equally to the >wife. This last statement by the group's moderator says a lot. You would not only be adding an idea to your point of view, but actually adding to the spiritual well being of your life. I think God would approve. Well, people, I have only posted/replied to this group once before. I like to read it and learn from it. It seems to me, however, that women are not given fair time here - or maybe they just don't post. Jedidiah, I know you probably didn't mean to, but you hurt my feelings. Try to see things from a woman's perspective. To me, what you said appeared to be thoughtless and cold-hearted. Did you think that a woman reading that stuff wouldn't mind? Well, this woman was very upset. It sometimes makes you wonder about being a Christian. I don't think God is a sexist God. (I think he loves the person, not the gender.) I do, however, see a lot of men that claim to be God fearing who are (sexist). I hope that you are not like that. Bonnie Tong "Lord, make my words sweet and tender Bonnie.Tong@Dayton.NCR.COM today, for tomorrow I may have to ...!uunet!ncrlnk!cipc1!btong eat them." --unknown
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (08/27/89)
In article <Aug.19.03.46.05.1989.17145@athos.rutgers.edu> iba@ics.uci.edu (Wayne Iba) writes: > >Many people get bent out of shape about this submission thing in marraiges. ... >I would like to point out that while the wife's >lot seems tough, the responsibility on the husband is even greater. Paul >says "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and >gave himself up for her .... In this same way, husbands ought to love >their wives as their own bodies" (Eph 5:25-28). When my wife and I got married, we included a rather lenghty explanation of the passage in Ephesians 5. Since most of our relatives are non-Christians, we knew that there would be a tendency for people to hear it as, "Wives, become doormats." Our explanation streesed that the responsibility in the marriage falls upon the husband. To love as Christ loved the Church is not an easy thing to do. I think Paul's summary in Eph. 5:32 helps to put it into perspective: "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." (NIV) The husband is the leader, but he should always have his wife's best interests in mind. And the wife should have respect for her husband's leadership. We recieved no negative comments on the issue of submission. I think this is a testimony to the balanced perspective given in the scriptures. -- Geoff Allen - {uunet, bigtex, ucdavis!egg-id}!pamfire!geoff "May the God of Peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." -- Hebrews 13:20,21 (NIV)
thompson@athos.rutgers.edu (Marge Thompson) (08/29/89)
Like Bonnie, I constantly read this newsgroup and never get involved in responses. I have responded only once before but I feel I must respond at this point also. Marriage is a two-way street. I believe God is instructing us that once we become man and wife, we are one. He tells us in Genesis 2:24 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife and they become one" (GN). Becoming one to me means you are coming together as a total and full person with input from both sides. Marriage cannot work if the husband and wife go their separate ways. My husband and I have been married 31 years and one of the rules of our household (which we made before we were married and which still applies to our marriage) is that we make decisions together as a team, as "one" which God has instructed us to do. We do not make major decisions without checking with each other. We discuss the problems of the house together and reach a mutual decision or agreement. We do not enter into major decisions without thought and prayer. I am not saying that each decision is the right one, but we know the decision we made together is both our responsibilities and that makes things even easier if it turns out that it was not the right choice. So, our theory of what the bible tells us regarding submission, or marriage is all summed up in Genesis 2:24 and if its worked for 31 years for us, it can work for others. In Christian love, Marge Thompson
plb@violin.att.com (Peter L Berghold) (08/29/89)
[This is a contribution to the continuing discussion of the husband as leader in marriage. It references postings by Wayne Iba and Geoff Allen, which cite Eph 5:25-28 to show that leadership does not mean tyranny, and does take the wife's interests into account. --clh] Strange this thread has come up when it has... our pastor is in the process of teaching this very part of Ephesians! I think EPH 5:32 is the most important point to consider in this whole subject of the "submission of wives to their husbands". If the husband is doing his part then the wive's part in this SHOULD happen automatically. To the folks out there that object to the wording "submit", I feel that you do not understand how it is meant. It does not mean to give up your rights as a human being. It does not mean to become a slave or less of a person. Submission is more the recognition of someones authority in your life. If you are employed by someone, you "submit" to them by recognising (sp?) their authority as your employer. If you are self-employed, you "submit" to your customers, or I daresay you won't be in business very long! Include your wife in descisions? The Bible refers to husband and wife as _JOINT HEIRS_!! Husbands, you better be includeing your wives in descisions! Even the heads of major corporations know better than to operate in a vaccum where nobody else's opinions count in a descision! At least the ones who are going somewhere do... Each person has areas that they are better in than the next. Same is true in a marriage. The husband may not be good at finances, and the wife better at it than a CPA... so why shouldn't the wife be in charge of financial descisions in the household? Likewise some wives are DANGEROUS with the check book, so the husband should be in authority here. What I am getting at is that a marriage should be a balance. Wives and husbands are supposed to be partners. Marriage as ordained by God is not a dictatorship. Each member of the partnership have differing needs. A wife for instance tends to need to know that she is loved and appreciated by her husband for some- thing other than being a "baby factory" (to put it delicately) . Husbands tend to need to be respected and know that they are looked up to. Wives: if you don't respect your husbands, why did you marry him? If both partners WORK at providing the needs of each other, they won't need to be reminded of EPH 5:32. It will just happen. In Christ, Pete Peter L. Berghold, AT&T, HRSAG, UUCP: att!violin!plb
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (09/01/89)
In article <Aug.17.05.13.46.1989.15285@athos.rutgers.edu> palosaari@tiger.oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari) writes: >I'm currently engaged in a discussion over whether or not the man should >make the crucial desicians in a Christian marriage when there can be no >agreement. My opponent argues that those passages stating that the wife >should obey the husband were made for a certain church and a certain time >only. Could anyone point me to some relavent passages on the subject. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture {is} given by inspiration of God, and {is} profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". If we believe this Scripture then we cannot accept the argument that we may ignore some Scriptures simply because we believe they were meant for a specific church at a specific time in its history. While some particular historical event may have stimulated Paul's writing of a given passage, the Bible says rather emphatically of itself that each and every Scripture is meant for general consumption. The best way to obtain an answer to your question is, I believe, to look at one of the reasons the God instituted marriage. Ephesians 5:31-32 says "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.". Our marriages are, among other things, an earthly picture of the ultimate marriage between Christ (the husband) and His Church (the wife). In case there is any doubt that Christ is the husband and that we believers are the wife, Ephesians 5:25 commands "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;", and Ephesians 5:24 says "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so {let} the wives {be} to their own husbands in every thing.". Given that our marriages are to depict the one and only eternal marriage, that between Christ and His Church, we must understand that God commands us to pattern ours after His. The Church must submit to Christ. Christ is the winner when it comes to a disagreement in principle. This, therefore, must be what God would like us to show the world as we live out our marriages. This may be an unpopular point of view these days, but strict obedience to God's commandments usually is. Many women find it difficult to accept the fact that God expects them to totally submit to their husbands, recognizing them as the undisputed head of the household. They must recognize that God has given a directive that is just as hard to their husbands. If a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, then, strictly speaking, a husband must meekly and lovingly tolerate all those characteristics of his wife that he really cannot stand, he must make each and every decision in such a way that it benefits her and has absolutely no elements of self interest, and he must always be looking for ways to deny his own interests in favour of hers. If every husband would run his household according to this kind of methodology then there is no woman at all who would have any trouble fully submitting to her husband. The only reason that most of our marriages are abismal failures is because either or both partners let self-interest get in the way of true obedience to what God has really commanded. A note to husbands with respect to God's commandments pertaining to how we are to treat our wives. The fact that our wives must be submissive to us does not mean that they should ever have to live in fear of sexual abuse. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 says "For this is the will of God, {even} your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:". We are not to treat, or even think of, our wives lustfully. We are to esteem them, and treat them, as our most honourable possession. They are to be more important to us than anything else save God Himself. Even things like the all too common night out with the boys, sports events, and the evening news, must never, and I really mean never, get between us and our wives. Even our own desire for sexual gratification must never be in control of how we treat our wives. God commands, with respect to sexual relations, that a husband's only goal is to be his wife's sexual satisfaction, and that a wife's only goal is to be her husband's sexual satisfaction. 1 Corinthians 7:4 says "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.". Various people have posted comments regarding the fact that a marriage must at all times be based on mutual decision making, and that action ought not be taken if an agreement cannot be reached. While this would be true in a sinless environment, we must never lose sight of the fact that both partners in this supposedly ideal human marriage are still subject to the whims of the sinful bodies which they still possess. While it is also true that they have, in the eyes of God, become not only one household, but also one flesh, the fact that this single body is still under the control of two independent human minds (which hopefully will become more and more alike as time goes on) cannot be ignored. There may be many issues whose resolutions can wait for unanimity, but there are also those which cannot. If a child has, for example, committed some sort of serious infraction, and if both parents of that child cannot agree on which form of discipline is to be used, it would be doing that child a tremendous disservice to defer discipline for a week or so while the whole issue is debated. At such times it is necessary for the impass to be broken, and what better and more impartial way to break the impass than to fall back on the advice of God Himself. I would think that this would actually give a wife a high degree of comfort, as her husband, and not she herself, is without a doubt, by the commandment of God, fully responsible for those decisions which must be made in haste. There has been a posting from a woman who says that she will never submit to any man because she has only one lord, God, to whom she will submit. I would like to suggest to her that she is not fully submitting to her Lord, God, if there is at least one of His commandments which she is intentionally not going to obey. Permit me to requote Ephesians 5:24 which says "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so {let} the wives {be} to their own husbands in every thing.". Note that she need not submit to just any man, just to her own husband, and that this submission to her own husband must be complete. Even though we may not always understand why God gives us the various commandments which He has given us, we must obey them, trusting that they are for the best over the long-term. In this case, God has been gracious enough to tell us exactly why He has given wives this particular commandment. 1 Peter 3:1-4 says "Likewise, ye wives, {be} in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation {coupled} with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward {adorning} of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But {let it be} the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, {even the ornament} of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.". A Christian wife with an unsaved husband is very likely being subjected, by him, to all sorts of physical and/or emotional abuse. He is probably also in no way interested in reading the Bible that she would like so much for him to read. God is telling her that one of the ways in which she can contribute to her husband's potentially becoming saved is by her conduct, i.e. by being completely submissive to her husband, who will eventually have to ask himself what it is about his wife that is giving her the strength to put up with so much undeserved abuse that an average woman of the world would never tolerate. If a wife truly loves her husband then would she not trade a few years of earthly abuse at his hands for his not having to endure hell forever later? Please forgive me if this seems like a rather nasty question, and do not interpret my willingness to be extremely direct as having any either nasty or judgemental intent. Each and every Christian who is married to a non-Christian really ought to seriously ask himself if he really and truly loves his spouse according to the definition of love that can be found in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7, or if he actually loves himself and his perceived rights to comforts more, even though no Scripture in the entire Bible has ever entitled him to any. Is he trying to take matters into his own hands, or is he really trusting in God's promise in Romans 8:28 which says "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to {his} purpose."? In a more global statement, but one which also applies to the marriage relationship, 1 Peter 2:20 asks a very good question. It says "For what glory {is it}, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer {for it}, ye take it patiently, this {is} acceptable with God.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
paulj@uunet.uu.net ( Joey Paul x4129 ) (09/01/89)
In article <Aug.29.03.22.22.1989.21089@athos.rutgers.edu>, plb@violin.att.com (Peter L Berghold) writes: [stuff deleted] > don't respect your husbands, why did you marry him? If both partners WORK at ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > providing the needs of each other, they won't need to be reminded of EPH 5:32. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree whole-heartedly with your message. What stood out to me was the above. My wife and I have found out over several years of marriage that working toward meeting your partners need, as opposed to being concerned about having *your* needs met ("What can I do for you" vs. "What can you do for me") can totally transform a marriage. If I am meeting my wife's emotional and physical needs then I won't have to request, or "demand" anything from her - she *wants* to please me. Someone said to me once "If you want to be treated like a king, treat her like a queen." It may be kind of corny but it's true. Another famous man once said, "Give and it shall be given unto you...". It becomes an endless cycle (usually broken by an occasional fuss or fight, but the making up part sure is fun...) -- Joey Paul ...uunet!ingr!b8!dj4104!paulj (UUCP) ( 205 ) 772-4129 b8!dj4104!paulj@ingr.com (INTERNET) * Intergraph Corp., One Madison Ind. Park, Huntsville, Ala, 35807-4201 *
nlt@romeo.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) (09/01/89)
I have refrained thus far from joining the discussion on authority in
marriage, because most of the Scriptural support for both cases has been
pointed out already: Several Pauline passages support the traditional style
of marriage, while Galatians, Genesis 1, and the general principle of loving
one's neighbor as one's self give support to an egalitarian view; Genesis 2-3
is, um, flexible enough to be used to support either side.
However, I decided to post when the end of Peter Berghold's article caught
my eye. He writes:
> Each member of the partnership have differing needs. A wife for instance
> tends to need to know that she is loved and appreciated by her husband for
> something other than being a "baby factory" (to put it delicately). Husbands
> tend to need to be respected and know that they are looked up to. Wives: if
> you don't respect your husbands, why did you marry him? If both partners
> WORK at providing the needs of each other, they won't need to be reminded of
> EPH 5:32. It will just happen.
Two things bother me in this paragraph.
First: The asymmetry in the descriptions of the wife's and husband's
needs is strange to my ears. In my own relationship, yes, I need to feel
loved -- but so does he; he needs respect -- but so do I. (My fiance's comment
here was "Yes, we have different needs: you need air and I need water.")
Second: The meaning of the word "respect" shifts between its occurrences
in the third and fourth sentences, making the implied argument fallacious. Two
of the dictionary definitions for "respect" are a) "admiration for or a sense
of the worth or excellence of a person..." and b) "deference to a right,
privilege, privileged position, or to someone or something considered as having
certain rights or privileges". By tying "respect" to being "looked up to", the
third sentence suggests meaning (b); by asking "why did you marry him?", the
fourth sentence uses meaning (a). The argument appears to be
If X marries Y, then X should respect(a) Y.
If X respects(b) Y, then X submits to Y's authority over X.
Therefore, if X marries Y, X should submit to Y's authority over X.
which, of course, commits the fallacy of equivocation. The flaw is most
easily seen by assigning other values to X and Y: for instance, if X = "the
husband" and Y = "the wife", we have "If a husband marries his wife, then
he should 'respect' [ambiguous] her; therefore, he should submit to her
authority over him."
My own opinion on the question of authority in marriage is that since,
for me, authority in a relationship tends to create a distance that inhibits
intimacy in that relationship, it baffles me that anyone would want to introduce
authority into a relationship as intimate as marriage. What St. Paul's advice
would have been had he been able to meet twentieth-century men and women, I
cannot say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The first thing that strikes the careless observer is that women are unlike
men. They are 'the opposite sex' -- (though why 'opposite' I do not know;
what is the 'neighbouring sex'?). But the fundamental thing is that women are
more like men than anything else in the world. They are human beings."
- D. L. Sayers
Nancy Tinkham
nlt@lear.cs.duke.edu
{decvax,rutgers}!mcnc!duke!nltmmcdanie@uunet.uu.net (Molly McDaniel) (09/04/89)
Pete Berghold says: > Husbands tend to need to be respected and know that they are looked up > to. Wives: if you don't respect your husbands, why did you marry him? > If both partners WORK at providing the needs of each other, they won't > need to be reminded of EPH 5:32. I have a question: what if you're married and don't respect your husband? What then? How can you work at respecting someone? Don't they have to earn that respect? -- Molly McDaniel UUCP: ...cvl!umabco!mmcdanie Internet: umabco!mmcdanie@cvl.umd.edu Snail Mail: UMAB, 511 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD. 21201
garys@decvax.uucp (Gary M. Samuelson) (09/11/89)
In article <Sep.4.05.55.45.1989.25662@athos.rutgers.edu> cvl!cvl!umabco!mmcdanie@uunet.uu.net (Molly McDaniel) writes: >I have a question: what if you're married and don't respect your husband? >What then? How can you work at respecting someone? Don't they have to >earn that respect? My interpretation of scripture is that each individual is obliged to do the right thing, even if no one else responds by also doing the right thing. For example, you should give to those who cannot give back, so that the Lord will repay you, and not the recipients (Luke 14:12ff). Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. This command is not contingent on anything which is under the control of the wife. Similarly, wives are commanded to respect their husbands. This command is likewise not contingent on anything which is under the control of the husband. (Jesus never said it would easy.) If you feel that your husband is not worthy of respect, what you need to do is to look harder for some characteristic which is respectable. There must be something about him which is respectable; concentrate on those things. "Whatsoever is pure, whatsoever is honorable... think on these things." Sinners need salvation, even though by definition they don't deserve it. Men need respect, even if they don't deserve it. They probably need it even more when they don't deserve it, because they know they don't deserve it, and therefore don't have self-respect, either. Gary Samuelson
TTAERUM@ualtavm.bitnet (09/11/89)
> article <Sep.4.05.55.45.1989.25662@athos.rutgers.edu>, cvl!cvl!umabco!mmcdani > >I have a question: what if you're married and don't respect your husband? >What then? How can you work at respecting someone? Don't they have to >earn that respect? >Molly McDaniel Its a four way street. Both husband and wife need to earn respect and both need to figure out ways to respect the other person. To earn respect I use words like: "You're right and I'm wrong." "I really botched that up didn't I, will you forgive me?" "That is certainly a good idea, I wish I had thought of it." To earn respect I: "Try to remember important dates (such as an anniversary) and make them memorable". "Do a job that is normally under my wife's jurisdiction (in our family one of them is making supper)." To learn to respect my wife more I: "Remember the things that she is better at than I am." - Her verbal skills are better than mine. - She get's along with people better than I do. - She is more intelligent than I am in money matters. - She has better memory for names than I do. - ... ... ... If a person can't think of things that their mate is better at, then problem is not with the mate, the problem is we are dealing with an egotistical maniac. Finally, there are those areas of irritation between people which a person gives over to Jesus Christ. So far I have been unsuccessful at making major renovations to my own character so why I should be successful at changing another person's character would be a mystery. Terry Taerum