Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

Great post, Ian, I agree. I've never been the submissive type and haven't been in a marriage for years, so I don't know how I'd do now, but my picture of the ideal working out of this order of things is that the husband's headship is led by his love for his wife, which doesn't sound like anything oppressive at all. As you say, in reality we're all so flawed anything is going to be a struggle, but before Paul told wives to submit to their husbands, he told husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church.

That's a different rationale than you were offering before. It's one thing to defend the Biblical view of marriage because it appears to be mandated by the Bible; I can't argue with that because it's just a question of whether you accept the Bible or not.But before you appeared to be defending the Biblical view because it's actually effective. That, I can't let pass. The Biblical view is a repressive throwback to a time when marriage was a kind of slavery for women. It's one thing to defend it because it appears to be the will of your god but quite another to try to defend it on its own merits; on its own merits, its quite indefensable. Can you show me in the Bible where it says that God has decreed that men shall balance the checkbook and women shall cook and sew? Are you married? I've been for years. I haven't noticed the need for a "head" yet in the least; reasonable people who act like adults can always agree on what is best for the whole. The only time two people need a "head" to make decisions for both of them is if one or both of them can't reliably see beyond their own interests, and such people have no business being married in the first place. Absolutely none of these are situations where one person's opinion should overrule another, especially the first. Particularly the first. What you would describe as the man taking the lead and making the decision as the "head" of the wife, would be an illegal act of marital rape.("In creche"? I don't understand what that means. Is that an English expression of some sort?) Divorce. These are called "irreconcilable differences." If they don't want a divorce, then they figure out a compromise. But certainly the man has no right to rape and impregnate his wife, or stand in the way of her abortion, if they can't compromise about having more children. Having more children is the decision of the woman, because it's her body, no matter what. (Also it's the man's decision to donate the sperm required, if the wife wants more children but he does not.) A clever abdication, but it won't work. You've already made it clear, from previous posts, that you're trying to defend the Biblical view on its own merits. Naturally, fundamentalists would (and have) do anything that they believe God requires, beneficial or not. The question is, how is their view of marriage defensible on its own merits?

Actually I should have mentioned that I didn't think these were good examples of where the husband should rule. But in any case the husband's headship isn't to be a laying down of the law but a decision made when it is hard to make a decision, not when his wife is adamantly opposed to him.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 11:46 AM

Nicely put. I think the caustic wit and passion that seep into your postings are well placed here. Also: don't forget about marriage solely as an exchange of property.This message has been edited by docpotato to make subjects and verbs agree 'cause there should be no debate there!, 01-12-2006 09:47 AMThis message has been edited by docpotato, 01-12-2006 09:48 AM

This idea that the Bible is a throwback is completely wrong. In any area of life whatever, Christ's teaching was a liberalizing influence. In the area of marriage it was a CORRECTIVE to the frequent tyrannical abuse of wives by husbands that prevailed in the pagan world, and in fact still does in many parts of the world. "Headship" is not tyranny. I haven't followed this entire thread but there shouldn't be any implication of the husband's overruling a wife's strong feelings about something. That is not what it means. He's to be a leader, not an oppressor in any way at all. Although in one place wives are told to be submissive to their husbands, in other places the idea is that they are to be submissive one to another. Much of what people seem to be saying on this thread about mutuality in marriage actually comes from the once-Christian culture, and is out of place as an objection to the Bible. This topic somehow got wrongly polarized. Too much heat, little light.

If the woman volunteers to abide by her husband's decision, well, that's another responsibility of a spouse in a marriage - to be the one who steps up and makes the hard decisions when asked to, or when placed in that position by circumstance.Part of being married is the perogative to let a decision rest with the partner, and part of being married is to accept the responsibility of decision when your partner needs you to do it. There's nothing male or female about that; it's about married people being able to rely on each other.

I agree. The problem I think is that we take fallen world meanings for submit/head/helpmeet etc and force them into Gods order and so end up with power struggle and abuse. A man who has the interests of his wife and family in prime position is going to be open to correction when he is wrong, will be willing to change when he is wrong, will seek the support and advice of his wife in deciding which tack to take. Similarily a woman who has the interests of her husband and family at heart will take advantage of the freedom of not having to concentrate on overall direction and can work at the tasks which enable the overall direction to be executed sucessfully.It sounds like heavenNeither task is any less vital than the other. And it is simply the fallen worlds order, which sees power and control as pinnacles to be striven for, which cannot understand equality of importance in both leader and follower roles.

Sure. Why should the poor woman have to worry her little head about anything besides what's for dinner, and does the floor need sweeping?Leave them big decisions to the men-folk, right? After all, who needs freedom and self-determination? Slavery is the real freedom, right guys?

Yes. And some Christians have even misread those terms into the Bible.Certainly your opponents do.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 01:15 PM

If your life was threatened by the pregnancy going full term likely the man would be empathatic. If your life is not threatened its as much his baby as yours. Remember the baby is not your body but as you said his protogey, like were not talking rape here. Your claiming the baby's body is yourn, but you know that its as much his as yours. The fundemenatal marriage is so your child will have a daddy, not just a mommy, etc... If you and the man are not married the fundemental way is joint custody. The woman sharing equally in the raising of the child with the man. This is fair cause you want the man to care about his protegy, but woman want equal rights so it should be shared custody. (right)I tend to agree for your equal rights, like when a fundemental marriage fails to be fair it should be shared custody. Your really don't want more rights than a man, but equal rights. Right ? If you abort the baby that is half his body, then you in violated the rights of the father. If you both don't want the baby and your life is not threatened by the baby then you murdered his baby. Its like you said your mom grandmom might want to adopt your baby, or some fundemental marriage where they can not have kids would make their marriage have more meaning.Lot of men want to be daddy's and lots of women want to be mommies. Just because you don't want to be a mommie shouldn't overide the rights of the protogy(child within womb). We really should over turn Roe verses Wade for the sake of the protogy if its not threatening the life of the woman. It would fullfill a lot of barren marriages where like you said your mom can adopt the child.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-12-2006 01:33 PM

Then let him bring it to term in his uterus, then.Oh, he doesn't have one? How is that Brenn's problem?

So abortion is okay in the event of conception due to rape?

quote:

---

Why do Americans vote for a president, you need someone to make decisions.

---

Again, why can't two people make decisions together?

quote:

---

Because as your brain developed you became a woman.

---

Are you saying that females do not make good leaders?That is not supported by any evidence at all.Unless you know of some...

quote:

---

The man is also the stronger vessel.

---

Says you.What does physical strenght have to do with ladership skills? Please explain.

quote:

---

It does not work

---

Yes it does.For example, that is how my marriage works, and the marriage of most of my firends work this way too.Since fundamentalists as a group have a higher divorce rate than the group I belong to, maybe that should tell you something.

quote:

---

If your husband is a christian then be the wife, let him be the man, but help him make good decisions, be a teamplayer, etc...

---

We make decisions together, because I am an intelligent adult with just as much say as what happens in our marriage and in my life as my husband.I am not some child who needs parenting from a husband.Anyone who wants a submissive wife really just wants a servant child in a woman's body.And that is sick.

quote:

---

Depends? You married the guy to have an raise a family.

---

Wrong.I married my husband to share my life with him as a friend and lover.

quote:

---

If you get a job, are you going to tell the supervisor to take a hike, or are you going to be on the same team.

---

Are you saying that a wife is her husband's employee?

quote:

---

In a family like in a buisness someone needs to make the final decision,

---

No, they don't.Sure, it's easier to always be able to overrule one's wife and get one's own way, but it's disrespectful and is not treating one's wife as a fully adult person.It means that you are acting more as a parent to your wife rather than treating her like an adult. That is disrespectful.Would you keep hanging out with a friend if he always had to have his own way when you both disagreed about something? Would you think it unfair if he told you that you HAD to submit to his will when you disagreed?

quote:

---

like even the president of the USA (he consults with his cabinet, etc...), then he makes the final decision. If you look at an arcade room over 90% are men cause they are better at making decisions.

---

An arcade room? Video games?They all made the dumb descision to waste their money on video games.

Abortion is NOT the topic of this thread. Stick to the topic or the thread will be closed.

---

If Roe verse Wade was overturned she should at least have the option to put the child up for adoption. There are a lot of fundemental marriage couples that can not have children. When a woman aborts the baby its a selfish decision to terminate the child.(Right ?) I suppose baby parts is big buisness and thus agree with you killing the baby should not be an option. Its not the womans body, its an innocent living breathing soul.http://oneimage.org/Images/pages/01cartoon170.htmWhy not outlaw the use of baby parts to enrich the already rich pharmacy drug companies they can use umbilical cords for research. Using baby parts is denying fundemental couples the joy of being a mommie, or a daddie, etc...http://www.gargaro.com/abortion/cartoons/babyparts.JPGThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-12-2006 06:29 PM

ok, so what part of this sentence is in english, again? the right of this child to come into a household where it isn't wanted and won't be well cared for you mean? this is off-topic and really should not be discussed here. but i must say this. pregnancy is inherently life threatening... despite modern medicine. it is a risk that humans (and other apes) accept for the sake of better protection than lain eggs which are prone to breakage. by hiding the developing eggs inside the moving, self-defending female, the offspring has a better chance of survival to birth. but it is nonetheless inherently dangerous for the female. if you would like to discuss the legal inplications of roe v wade, please take it elsewhere.