Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

The teaching last Sunday down my way, was on Colossians were it says "wives submit to your husbands". There were a couple of things of note about what was said. For her source as to what the positional relationship is between man and woman, our teacher went back to Genesis. She noted the following points:The Hebrew word used for the word "helper" is 'ezer'. Apparently when this word is used in the OT is it often used of an attribute of God. God as our strong helper, our strength, our refuge. The inclination to suppose that 'helper' means something subordinate, something less, seems to fall in the face of the word as it is used. It is a strong word, not a weak one.When God made everything he looked upon it and said it was good. That is, until he looked at man alone and said "it is not good for man to be alone". The idea that man can go it alone, that he has no need of guidance and help is not a concept contained within the bible. This idea is reinforced by "Let US make man in OUR image and likeness" The Godhead, by definition is a relational one. It is a relation where there is no greater or lesser. Christ isn't greater or lesser than the Father, the Father no greater or lesser than the Holy Spirit.Perfect communion of equal persons. That is the order of things within the Godhead. The are different 'functions' within the Godhead - but none more or less important than the other. If that is our model then it is safe to say there can be here can be no greater or lesser in that which he created in image and likeness.It was after the fall that woman was told that she would be subject to her husband. Subjection is a fall-enabled scenario - not the scenario that existed prior to the fall. When God told them aboue subjection, pain in childbirth, weeds and toil, he was telling them what would come as a result of the fall - he wasn't declaring that this was the order as he had intended it to be. And as Christians, we are called to live, not as fallen creatures, but to look to that which God meant and to strive towards that. To live as he intended us to live and as we shall ultimately live.Perfect communion of equals: different in ability, talents and skills - but made with the intention that our relative strengths would be put to work in order to serve the needs of the other. There can be no question in my mind that if Christians awoke every day and looked at the fact that their creator made them in 'our' image and likeness and looked to how they could serve (as the Godhead does) each other, then questions regarding position and the power struggles that can arise when we are thus focussed - would fade away. For want of ever being asked.There will be no Jew or Gentile in heaven. No bondservant or free. There will be no male or female. Only persons equal in merit and loved of God. We might as well start living according to that which is going to happen anyway.This message has been edited by iano, 10-Jan-2006 12:20 PM

Not in the sense that you will never find crossover but I do think that there are skills and abilities that the sexes by and large exhibit which would be seen as expressions of maleness/femaleness.This is not to say that there won't be many women who are, for instance, physically stronger than men. But if you picked the weakest woman and the weakest man in the world and progressed upwards, you would find in all (except possibly the first couple of cases) that men are always stronger than women. Thus it may be said that men are physically stronger than women. I think that the converse would be true if you carried out the same experiment regarding the ability to multitask.Why do you ask?

Remember we are talking about a "fundementalists" view of marraige - which is decided by what the bible says - not what we ourselves feel is best. It appears that a man is called on to be the head of the household and a woman called on to follow the lead of her husband. What does this mean precisely. Does it mean the man can't cook or sew or that the woman cannot do the diy around the house or have an interest in baseball - and in so doing, utilise the particular gifts they have? I don't think so. However, in involving oneself in various interests, one shouldn't foresake or ignore the order as God decided it should be.It think the crux of things has less to do with specific activities and more to do with the idea of the man being the head. The first question to be answered is "is there any need for a head at all?" I think that yes there is. Of course a couple should work together and evaluate together and take action together. The more their noses are pointed in a common direction the better. However, there are many fundemental decisions that need to be made within a marriage where the potential for fundemental disagreement can take place:- whether to have more kids
- whether the family should move home to another part of the country
- whether it is better that both work and the kids are placed in creche
- whether a risky but life enhancing operation should be performed on a child.etc, etc.Now it is best if these things are discussed and both people can come to an agreement or compromise which they feel achieves the best of all results. But what if they can't. What if they remain in disagreement about risky surgery on a child? A decision has to be made and in the end, assuming disagreement persists, someone has to make it. The need for a head at all is I think, obvious, barring some other way of sorting things out .Why should it be the man? There are many men who would make piss poor heads of households. We all know that. But the fundi's view has a couple of things about it which may be worth touching on:- the set-up refers to bible led household not any old household. A person who doesn't hold to the bible can do what they like here. They do what they like everywhere else anyway.- Gods PRIME purpose for a believer is not that they have a happy, contented lives but that they become holy. God has his eye on the eternal picture and is concerned that each of his children become like him. And he deals with the individual. Obedience is blessed and disobedience disciplined. The man who shirks his headship can expect discipline from God. The woman who supports (as helper - and remember "helper" it is a strong word) her weak husband to become a better head, who maintains the role she has been given can expect to be comforted and blessed and possibly have God bless her by leading her weak husband to make good decision despite himself.Paul, in chains in a jail cell could write "for I have learned the secret of contentment in ANY situation. When I live with (or in obedience to) God. Beaten and whipped whilst on a missionary journey, himself and his companion could sit in a jail cell singing Gods praises.The issue is not whether the man is a better head or not than the woman - patently very often he won't be. The issue is to do with obedience to God. It is for him to set up the order of things...and ours to obey. People who believe in God and his authority, submit to him and what he says. Theirs is simply to obey - not questionThat is the Christian walk. Not easy, often subject to failure. But a Christian is defined as being a person who has made the decision to trust God and his lead and not "to rely on your own understanding". And the more they walk after God the more they are blessed with understanding about his order and the more they come to agree with his order.

Schraf, see message 209 responding to Crash, which elaborates a little on how a "fundi" might view things

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.

I think your mixing up what the bible model is with that which you have seen occur on the ground. If you see headship as some kind of rulership where the wife is supposed to meekly obey and carry out the menial tasks around the home then you conflict with the model indicated in the bible. Jesus is the head of the church/body and it is him who we are pointed at for out modeling of headship. Jesus didn't rule. He sacrificed.A man shold sacrifice his own dreams and desires for the good of his family - not seek to use his position as a means to achieve that which he wants for himself - which is what so often happens I can't because it is not there. And the reason it is not there is probably because there is nothing wrong with a man cooking and sewing or a woman balancing the books. Your outlook is heavily caracatured Crash. Faith was right when she said I gave poor examples. More children is one of them from the viewpoint of opening a can of worms labelled off-topicism-potential but what about this one? Do you mean that people cannot have heartfelt and well worked out reasons for differing on such an issue? Lets assume they have talked to the doctors, prayed etc and still disagree. You offer divorce as the only alternative. When living in a flat with an equally argumentitive mate some years back we used to toss a coin. And I remember pointing out that the prime area of interest of God is not that the marraige not have mistakes and lacks on the part of both parties. God doesn't expect that both will get it right all the time. His interest is in obedience unto holiness. As both obey God blesses. The issue of headship falls away as God works with both to enable them to carry out their part in HIS scheme of things. A believers marraige differs from an unbelievers marraige in that the contract is drawn up between 3 parties not 2. God is the head of it all and it is him which both the man and the woman serve ultimately.He decides the roles and is the manager of the team. It is not for the players to question the manager who has the better overview of thingsRepression, restriction, abuse of power do occur but that is not following the biblical model. It is misusing the biblical model. As with anything else - one can take a piece of scripture an haul it out of context to suit oneself.

She has the option of trusting what her God tells her. That is hardly abdication. Whats so bad about trusting God Crash. Something that is worse than your option, divorce? I was referring to a believers marriage not a religious marriage. Get a bunch of believers to say that God is not a central part of the marriage and you'll make your point. I'll defer to the opinion of folk who are in a position to know No believer is going to question who has the better view so I can't see what progress there is to made discussing it. A couple who dutifully obey Gods role in their marriage will not be in a position to know what would have happened had they taken a route of their own design. How do you figure that people do a lot better of without Gods guidance in marraige. (please don't quote some figures of 'Christian' divorce rates exceedding secular ones at me will ya?)This message has been edited by iano, 13-Jan-2006 03:13 PM

So, two people turn genuinely to God and seek his guidance. So he gives them opposing answers....?What do you reckon is the solution to the problem - assuming Crash's one of initiating divorce proceedings is not considered optimal by you? If we accept for a moment that man as head of the household is God ordained then it is reasonable to suppose that God will honour and seek to enable that which he has instigated. No man can know anything of God unless God reveals it to them - so superiority has nothing to do with itThere is a persistance in viewing headship as better or more powerful than followership. Persistance in thinking the head role is the juicy one. But this is only so in the worlds model of things - not the bibles. There is no indication in the bible that Jesus is lesser than the Father or the Father less worthy than the Holy Spirit. A man who submitted himself to his father becomes the entrance by which all men can come to the father. Hardly a weak, secondary role. Is it?The problem is one of failing to understand the biblical model of things and inserting worlds values onto the words: submit, serve, obey....

I don't see how this can be. God doesn't have two opposing ways of salvation yet this is what is held by 'opposing' Christian denominations. It is obviously not God people are hearing, but themselves. I hope I haven't given the impression that I hold to some kind of man the hunter gatherer / woman at home meekly darning the socks marriage. I'm assuming that the above is part and parcel with a good marriage Christian or otherwise. All the above has been done. They've been to the doctors and discussed the pros and cons, they have different opinions still."Finding no agreement" is indeed a bummer but that doesn't solve our problem. What next? To operate on the child or not to operate on the child. The point I am trying to underscore is the need for a decision on whether someone is going to be the one to take ultimate responsibilty at all (be it the man or woman) Surely that would be the indeed be the case if the woman felt that she couldn't abide by this model of marriage but was forced to. However, a Christian woman getting married is under no enforced obligation to conform to the biblical model. It is her free choice to follow: either at all or by the degree with which she feels happy. The consequences are hers here as with any area of her Christian walk where her obedience falls below total. Its not as if she is any different to any other Christian out there: imperfect in obedience. She, just like us all, faces the consequences of it I imagine. As above, the woman can choose not to take the mans lead if she wants. A woman can't be forced to follow. She follows because she chooses to follow - lets not forget this. A follower choses for that. I can choose to obey God or not. I do both everyday. In doing so I choose to accept the conseqences -even though I might moan about them when they arrive. However the analogy is not a good one: God and me are not equal. Man and woman are created equal. If man is the apple and woman the orange, how can one be more important than the other. Surely in marriage, both are equally necessary in order for it to workThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Jan-2006 06:50 PM

To be honest I have no idea how early Christian cultures dealt with womens position. I know that the early Christians struggled with many aspects of this newly revealed faith so I imagine that there were carry overs in the treatment of women from the old, wordly order into the faith just as there was with legalism (jews) and paganism (gentiles). We still have it today with male misuse of position with respect to females and female seeking to attain a position not intended for them.I don't expect there was a time when the true biblical model of marriage reigned. Or that there ever will be. I reckon the best folk can do is to ever work towards but never achieve it. Just as in other areas of the Christian walkIt may sound somewhat glib to say that the challenge for a man is to avoid misuse of position and move towards servanthood and the challenge for a woman is to accept servanthood and avoid seeking a position not open to her. Each will stand before God and give an account of their actions. The significance of some temporal aspects of things should be seen in the light of what matters in eternity.As noted in the post above, the decision to follow is the womans decision. She is not obliged to follow in the sense that she has no choice. It is not for man to enforce his headship. Biblical headship involves servanthood and love - not force. A man can no more force his headship on his wife that that he can force himself on her sexually. Sex and headship share similar traits. They are transmitted through love

Read the above couple of posts Crash will you. There is a point which I should have raised earlier but didn't. To whit: a follower chooses to do so whether at all or in extent.Head/helpmeet is an order set up by God which is beneficial to both in the degree in which they choose to follow it. But neither are obliged to. If they follow it they can expect blessing if not they cannot not - possibly, as in other areas, to the degree in which they obey.But not necessarily In order to examine the rate of failure of "People Who Say They Are Christians" marriages, one could refer to the data concerning such marriages.But I'm not sure what light the former statistics would shed on what the situation is with actual Christians. Patently claiming to be something cannot be taken as an indication of fact

I say "misuse" in the sense that males have a biblical mandate that they should assume the head of the family role - and then think that this means dominate, enforce and can generally overrule the opinion of their wives. I wouldn't use the word power in any context of the biblical model for marriage. If an individual is dealing in those terms then they, he or she, is way off base. I gave an example before and have not yet gotten round to reading responses as to solution. It has to do with a child who can undergo a risky but life enhancing operation. All the technical discussion has been carried out. Both man and wife are able to weigh up the position. They arrive at different views. What do you suggest is their next move. Operate or no - that is the question. The question doesn't presuppose the man makes the choice - but asks is there a reason to agree that one needs to take responsibility assuming they cannot come to common agreement and no compromise solution existsIt is interesting to note that this topic has been the subject of discussion this last two weeks in my church. Hazel, the teacher told us that up to 12 years ago she and her husband were having problems due to their misunderstanding of what the bible meant. She and he assumed this him-above-her thing you (and I) object to. They finally got it and she said that in the intervening years there has been but one occasion where it was necessary for one (him) to cast the deciding vote when they had a tie. It had to do with which church they should attend when they moved into a new area.To answer your question directly however. It is not a matter of tolerating someone overrulling me. No woman must feel herself subject to a man in the sense that she has to submit to his will/choice. If she does it it is because she choses to assume that position I think you still view the word submit in a worldly sense - which is perhaps not surprising. Words in the bible need to be defined internally not externally. Christ did his fathers will. He is no less that the father. Perfectly equal in fact Absolutely. There may be problems encountered in so far a men are (un)willing to be led by a woman but in terms of intelligence and decision -making etc there is nothing to separate them. I think men and women differ in make up but that a womans toolkit can achieve as good (or better) result as man is I think inarguable.I don't think that God wants that a woman be precluded from expressing her gifts. Quite the contrary. So long as the couple are living in his will then everything is fine

I gather a reason for objections to the biblical model for marriage have to do with a perception as to what the word submit (for instance) means. Words have meaning to us, so when we read them we attach what we understand by each word to form a view as to what the overal piece says. When I think of the word submit I think of Major/Private Boss/Worker Policeman/motorist. These all imply a sense of control and absolute authority to which the lesser must submit or else.The way I picture it is more like a football game. There is a manager (God) who has an overall objective in mind. He has players and decides on how best to employ them given the objective. It may well be that a player who is put in defence could, as things stand, do a better job in offence than the player who the manager choses to put in offence. The manager sees that if both assume responsibility for the roles he has given them and if they work together to help each other fulfill the roles he has given them then the overall objective is best achieved.The players may either accept the manager and trust he knows what he is doing or they may not. In the case of a Christian marriage the decision of both parties is a) accept (as best they can) Gods order and concentrate on the task he gives them (he is not uncommunicative or unsupporting in this) b)carry out the role he gives them to the best of their ability. It is him they ultimately serve. The manager will deal with each based on their own willingness/unwillingness to play as he asks. It is to him that both ultimately report

It swings both ways Crash. The man is told he should "love his wife as (just like) Christ loved the church (his bride). Christs actions are the model to which a man is told to take his lead from. Sacrifice without limit for the sake of the bride. Put your own interests before hers it ain't.In the measure a man sacrifices his interests can a wife submit to him - an vice versa. I imagine "If there is anyway to avoid drinking from this cup..." pled Jesus of his Father prior to his crucifixion"....but not my will, but yours be done" An indication of separatness of persons/will. But then again, no one can truly get their head around the Trinity.PS: I don't know of any mainline Christian denomination which shares your view Not when it comes to things of God it doesn't. Any mainline theology on the Trinity will talk about equality of persons. No one individual superior/more important than the other. Remember the Christian model of marriage talks of "the two becoming one flesh". This doesn't just refer to a physical act but of a welding together of two people. Something that is unified cannot have the division required in order to provide above/below.Which is more important, the bolt or the nut? Given the hour, I'll refer you to 1 Corinthians 2:14 This message has been edited by iano, 18-Jan-2006 01:39 AM

I gave an example earlier of a child + life threatening/life enhancing surgical operation. And that neither father or mother agree on whether or not to have it done. What does your model of marriage suggest they do? (the only clear answer I have had so far to the question is Crash's - who said they should divorce) Have a read of a post to brenni a couple of posts ago where the analogy of a third person within the marriage was highlighted in the form of a football manager. It has to do less with womans submission to man/man sacrificing to woman and more to do with submission/sacrifice to God. Each Christian will face difficulties obeying what God demands of them but is aided by God in understanding why he does it they way he does it. Even if they weren't it doesn't matter - a believers role is not to question God (even thought we do) but to do as he says as best they can (even though we don't).As I've pointed out to Crash, the model for mans headship is what Christ did for his bride: sacrifice of self in the most total way possible. It ain't easy for us neither...The perfect no-win situation. Schraf, lets not forget what we're talking about here in overview. Everything a Christian does is done in the context of having a relationship with God. Do you understand, even in theory, what that means? Consider all this around us and consider the 'size' of the being that would be necessary to make it all. The bible frequently has mankind expressing sheer, dumbstruck awe at the power and majesty and ways of God. "Peace beyond understanding" "how unsearchable are his ways". Nothing is more vital or rewarding or inexplicable than coming into a relationship with God. Nothing on earth is worth holding onto that it provide satisfaction if it means missing out on what God offers. When Christians, myself included get inclined to reckon otherwise we are being fools. And we know it.You say "good Christian marriage". It seems as if you sneer the words out. But you make the unwarranted presumption that a God blessed marriage is somehow going to be less rewarding for the woman concerned than would Captaining industry. Nothing can improve on life than have God blessing it for you. This might seem unsatisfactory to you but realise it's like me trying to explain to a blind person what the colour red is like. Your not a believer and you have no objective clue as to what it means to know God personally. It seems to me that until you do you are not in a position to weigh up the relative merits of things.When a person gives up own sovereignty and accepts Gods sovereignty over them, they become Christians. That's all becoming a Christian involves. When such a person sees what that results in then they will tend to have less of a problem obeying him in the future. They have tasted what it means to obey God and they like it. God told woman that her childbearing pains would be greatly increased. Do you take him to task over that and consider it unfair that he should allow such a rampantly sexist situation to exist. Or do you accept the pain of childbirth as a natural thing. Part of what it is to be a woman. Do you accept that it is the very difficulty of pregnancy with its sickness and worry and self-sacrifice and at the end of it all...pain - that results in the potential for a mothers bond being uniquely special with her child. Should a man shake his fist at God because he doesn't get this privilege.When a woman submits to Gods order in pregnancy she gets a reward specific to herself. She can chose not to, to take contraception or abort and never have this reward. Her choiceDoes this mean the man is playing second fiddle to his wife? If you answer the conundrum with the sick child then we can talk about equality more maybe. Suffice to say in Gods scheme of things there is no talk of inequality. I've pointed out already that Christs submission to his fathers will didn't mean they aren't both God nor that one is less than the other.When the word 'death' is used in the bible it refers not to that which we commonly understand by the word: heart stops, brain function ceases, rotting away. It inevitably means separation. Spirit departing from body when humans die, separation between man and God due to the fall ("on the day you eat of this tree you will surely die"). If you want to use the worlds definition of submission - which always involves inequality of position then go ahead. But we're not talking about the worlds definition - we're talking the bibles definition. And in the bible one can submit and be equal all at the same time. I really would be interested in your response to the child/operation dilema. I'd like to see your worldly alternative expressed (not that I for a moment consider a woman ever to be a slave or that she is in need of leading at all)This message has been edited by iano, 18-Jan-2006 10:55 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 18-Jan-2006 10:59 AM