Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

This is a general reply to the issues of missbehaving kids.I have this little book: "The Good Old Days: They Were Terrible!". It's a book that sort of dipels the myth that somehow in the days of yor people were better off, or society was more stable, moral, etc.Infact, Juvenile Delinquency was a plague of the cities in the late 1800's and early 1900's. This particular book cites statistics saying that in any given month upward of 10'000 children were in jail in chicago alone.Fact is tho, those children weren't really considered children as when you were about 8 you were considered fit to work. Often kids left the house at 13 to go fend for themselves.In a chapter titled Discipline it talks about the "little red school house" of days gone by. As it turns out, discipline was a major problem back in those days. They even had their own "columbine" incedents where a teacher, who punished one of the kids, was ganged up on by the entire class and stoned to death!Anyway, just wanted to dispel the nonsense about liberal's don't beat their kids enugh.

quote:

---

There is a persistance in viewing headship as better or more powerful than followership.

---

That's because it is, by definition, more powerful.That's why an equal partnership in which two people share responsibility for the decisions and neither one of them gets to completely abdicate nor take on all responsibility for descisions is the way adults interact with each other.The Biblical model is archaic. It is time for Christians to stop treating women as though they were still considered property.Is it appropriate and healthy for two adult people in a committed romantic relationship to have a "leader and follower" type of relationship, in which the man is always the leader and the woman is always the follower?In what way is such a relationship one of equals? In what way can the husband not be seen as a parental figure to the wife? In what way can the wife not be seen as childlike?

quote:

---

Persistance in thinking the head role is the juicy one.

---

It isn't juicy in this situation, although many men think of it that way.It is sick.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-14-2006 04:34 PM

quote:

---

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.

---

So, you do admit, then, that the male's position is more powerful, since you say they "misuse" it, and clearly most men are not "seeking to attain" the position of the female, since it is less powerful?Since when are healthy adult relationships based upon such things, as they seem to be in Fundamentalist marriages?Would you ever tolerate a friend who always had the power to ovverruled your wishes when you disagreed with each other?

quote:

---

It 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.

---

Here's a thought.Why not have an equal partnership in which neither party is "in charge of" nor "in submission to" the other?You know.Like a grown up relationship.Let me ask you something, iano.Do you think that women can be the leaders of companies, countries, and militaries? Do you believe that they can be just as effective as men in any leadership role?

quote:

---

It's just the generic term used for the entire nonChristian world

---

Jews are Pagan.Got it.

Just a reminder that threads close at 300 posts.Carry on

Off Topic Aside -I love "pagans". They are the non-Christians who gave us Christmas and Easter - the most important Christian holidays!

I love pagans, too!LOL

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 grew up in it and i can't figure it out. please explain it to us more carefully.

I think we all understand what you mean; by submit you mean "put another's will before your own." It makes perfect sense. This, however, is double-speak. Christ did not do the father's will; Christ is the father and the son, both, so he's doing his own will. Moreover, to always do another's will is to place yourself below them. In an equal relationship, we would expect wills to converge, most of the time, and other times, for both partners to have their individual wills done on a more or less equal basis.To suggest that submission doesn't mean inferiority is to assert that words have no meaning. Wouldn't be the first time for your side, though.

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 get the manager thing. what i don't get is this alleged other definition for the word 'submit'.

The fact that Christ is superior to the man does not change the fact that the man is set as superior to the woman.The fact that the man is submitting to another power does not change the imbalance of power, because the man is not submitting to the woman. Just because my boss has a boss doesn't mean he's not my boss.So, no. It doesn't work both ways. Evangelical protestantism. Fairly mainstream. According to my church, merely God in the form of Jesus setting an example of how we're to pray and worship. He's talking to himself, but he's doing it as an example to us. As I've said, you can't submit to yourself. If you're promoting the idea that the wife submits to the husband, then you're arguing against the "one flesh" model. You can't submit to yourself, so if submission is occuring from one to the other, they, by definition, can't be one flesh. Nobody makes a claim that it's the nut's role to submit to the bolt. It's not your role to dole out reading assignments. What makes you think I have a Bible, or care to look up a verse in it?

quote:

---

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.

---

OK, so how is a little girl who is raised to believe the above about herself, her abilities, and her equality with men supposed to turn around and do this to be a good Christian woman?:

quote:

---

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.

---

According to you, a woman can be a captain of industry, a leader of nations, and can accomplish anything she sets her mind to, except that if she wants to be a good Christian wife, to have a good Christian marriage, to follow God's will, she must "choose" to "assume a submissive position" to her husband's will.The perfect no-win situation."Choose" to submit to be a good Christian wife and have a good Chriatian marriage.That's not a choice, iano. That's coersion and a bald threat that is a baldfaced effort to keep women in their place as second fiddle to men.It's time for Christianity to stop treating women like they need a leader.Why do you think a woman always needs to be led, iano? If she can be the leader of the free world, she certainly deserves to be treated as an equal parner in a marriage.A woman is not a child, nor a posession, and as such does not need to be led. A husband is not a parent nor a slave owner and as such has no place leading another adult person.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-17-2006 11:43 PM