What takes courage, obedience, and faith is to witness a failing Christian husband and remember that the Bible is clear that husbands are the head of the household, and wives are called to submit to their husbands even if the husband is not leading her as Christ leads the Church.In his series of three posts on the matter, Dalrock correctly points out:
These men are overcome by their own pride and a desire to curry favor with the wives they are speaking to. In the case of Pastors who sin this way it is to strengthen their position of leadership over their congregation, and this is by far the most damaging act of treachery. In the case of the omegas circling the camp hoping to find a shortcut to manhood by currying favor with unhappy wives, the treachery is no less real but it is far less damaging because these men are failures whom neither men nor women respect. But either way, this is how feminist rebellion is sold to modern Christians, and it perfectly explains why movies like Fireproof and Couragous are so eagerly accepted. Christian women in feminist rebellion are eager to hear a message which absolves them of the clear instruction to submit to their husbands, and far too many Christian men are looking to ingratiate themselves to the women in rebellion.
- Marital leadership is a man's Bible-based Christian duty.
- The modern Church is actively setting itself against the Bible in this regard.
- Female marital submission is not dependent upon a woman's approval of her husband's leadership.
It is understandably difficult for women raised in a feminist and equalitarian society to accept that they have a Christian duty to be submissive wives to their husbands. But think on this: pride is the source of the original rebellion. To rebel against the clear message of the Bible because it offends one's pride is quite literally Satanic behavior, whether one is male or female.
And one rejects one's Christian duties at one's eternal peril. Rejecting the leadership of one's husband is not necessarily tantamount to rejecting Jesus Christ as one's savior, but God is neither mocked nor fooled, and one always pays a price for disobeying His commands.
65 comments:
This is why men don't go to Church. It has refused to allow them to be the moral and spiritual leader of their household and thus, has nothing to offer them. Instead, it plays the guilt card by telling them to "man up". But the guilt card is rapidly being rejected whenever it comes up in whatever form it appears in.
A wife cannot be in submission to Christ and not be in submission to her husband. Christ can be first, but his command is for her to submit to her husband.
I would add children need to be submissive to their parents. Or shall we liberate tantrum throwing toddlers?
This parallel some of the libertarian v.s. anarchy discussion. Unless something is objectively and gravely evil, rebellion is a greater evil. Civil disobedience is only warranted against gravely unjust laws. A husband cannot legitimately order his wife to become a hooker to boost the family income. But on ordinary matters, wives will be judged on their ability to submit, not how often they are riht when second guessing.
But this also goes back to the Church. Do you submit to a bad church, but one Christ established, or rebel and form your own church? Where doesnyournpriest or pastor get his authority.
One of the complaints - quite legitimate - about the Catholic church is that it is corrupt and full of sinners. The pope included. As a Catholic, I am free to point out their hypocrisy, sins, errors, but I am called to submit in spite of all that. I am not free to selectively obey.
Should a wife obey the bible - sola scriptura - or her husband? This is a microcosm of the Reformation and counter-reformation.
A husband cannot legitimately order his wife to become a hooker to boost the family income. But on ordinary matters, wives will be judged on their ability to submit, not how often they are riht when second guessing.
You're incorrect. Submission is submission. The choice has already been made. The point is: don't be dumb enough to marry a man who will order you to do that.
Plenty of women do make that choice; their "husbands" are called pimps. Ironically, they submit better than many "good" Churchian women.
But this also goes back to the Church. Do you submit to a bad church, but one Christ established, or rebel and form your own church? Where doesnyournpriest or pastor get his authority.
That's the point. We don't accept the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ established. By your own logic, that would be the Orthodox Church.
As Nate so loves to point out, Roman Catholics are the original schismatics.
My church just offered to pay my way through Seminary, and Dalrock's continuous calls for pastors willing to nut up and tell women to submit is a large part of the reason I'm taking the offer seriously.
My church's official position on the matter is correct, though the pastors themselves often just go with the culture on the topic of women. One must understand, though, it's not like the proper relationship of husbands and wives is one of our core doctrines, written in our catechism. Oh wait, it totally is.
Anyhow, I like ranting about Scripture at least as much as I like writing computer games, so it wouldn't be a bad job for me. And it would be nice to respond to Dalrock's calling out of the churches with "Well, here's the sermon I preached last Sunday. :P" And to respond to swiftfoxmark2 with "Not in my corner, on my watch."
And technically the Synod would have to back me if the wimmenz in the church I ended up in tried to take me down for adhering to Scripture.
Anyway, I was about to ask for prayer on the subject, but now that I've typed this out, my response seems kind of obvious. It would be selfish of me not to take this opportunity. Athanasius Contra Mundum and all that.
Should a wife obey the bible - sola scriptura - or her husband? This is a microcosm of the Reformation and counter-reformation
How on earth you could get the idea of not obeying your husband from Sola Scriptura is beyond me, unless you think "Sola" is Latin for "Screw you." Every church that explicitly denies the submission of wives (rather than implicitly, like those Dalrock criticizes) also explicitly deny the authority of Scripture (and ought not be called churches at all).
It isn't sola scriptura. It is sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria.
That should give you a clue that the "sola" isn't supposed to be universally exclusive, but only exclusive among the options in its own subgroup.
You're incorrect. Submission is submission. The choice has already been made. The point is: don't be dumb enough to marry a man who will order you to do that."
No, a husband rights don't extend to ordering his wife to damn her own soul. If he orders her to commit adultery like that, she's duty bound to disobey him in submission to God. If a lieutenant commands something the general just told you not to do, you can't obey the lieutenant--he's probably in rebellion.
Recently I've been reflecting on the moral argument for the existence of God. Not the old "you can't have morals without God" stuff, but a "the ways of the Lord are right" argument.
The husband is the head of the home. Prayer and forgiveness and charity and moderation and all those biblical virtues are good for you. Sex should only be between a husband and wife, and married couples should have children, which are a blessing.
On and on it goes. It simply turns out to be true that the man who walks in the ways of the Lord is blessed.
None of this *proves* that God is real, but it nudges a man in that direction.
No, a husband rights don't extend to ordering his wife to damn her own soul. If he orders her to commit adultery like that, she's duty bound to disobey him in submission to God. If a lieutenant commands something the general just told you not to do, you can't obey the lieutenant--he's probably in rebellion.
You're wrong. She has no veto on his commands; this is the Churchian heresy. This is precisely why women are told not to be unequally yoked. She condemned herself to such obedience the moment she married a man in rebellion.
What is your Biblical evidence for the wife's veto?
Perhaps Emrys Myrddin thinks "sola scriptura" means that you only obey the Bible and no other authorities.
Of course it doesn't mean that. It means Scripture is the only infallible rule for faith and practice. It doesn't mean there aren't other authorities or rules in life.
"That's the point. We don't accept the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ established. By your own logic, that would be the Orthodox Church.
As Nate so loves to point out, Roman Catholics are the original schismatics."
The point still stands. If that's the case, in conscience, you ought to join the Orthodox Church.
I made my decision because the Catholic Church is so much larger, and usually the group that branches off is small. Before the schism, the Orthodox recognized Rome as having a certain amount of primacy over the other churches because of Peter; and the Orthodox changed their name to make a point--usually the group that changes it's name is the one that splits. I know there is the filioque conflict, but that just goes around and around and around.
You're wrong. She has no veto on his commands; this is the Churchian heresy. This is precisely why women are told not to be unequally yoked. She condemned herself to such obedience the moment she married a man in rebellion.
What is your Biblical evidence for the wife's veto?
I believe it was when God commanded us to love Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength.
Then we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.
God is supreme to the husband. And just because we make bad decisions in our lives, it doesn't mean we get to go against His Will because of said decisions.
1) The section of the catechism I linked to is a list of Scriptures detailing who has authority over whom. So apparently the contention that Sola Scriptura is a denial of all other authority is false.
2) My contention that if anyone thinks Sola Scriptura can be legitimately taken to mean wives are not required to submit to their husbands, that person is a willful idiot is proof enough that I myself do not believe Sola Scrptura is a denial of all other authority. To contend that I do so believe is to ignore nearly everything I've written here.
3) Every church thinks it's the original one. To argue that yours is the right one because its the only one that is 2,000 years old is to assume your conclusion, and will convince no-one.
You're wrong. She has no veto on his commands; this is the Churchian heresy.
It could theoretically be a heresy, but not a Churchian one. The earliest statement to the contrary that I found with a quick glance to Ante-Nicene Fathers was from Clement of Alexandria, c. 150 – c. 215:
---
Moreover, the free, though threatened with death at a tyrant's hands, and brought before the tribunals, and all his substances imperilled, will by no means abandon piety; nor will the wife who dwells with a wicked husband, or the son if he has a bad father, or the domestic if he has a bad master, ever fail in holding nobly to virtue. But as it is noble for a man Accordingly, both the old man, the young, and the servant will live faithfully, and if need be die; which will be to be made alive by death. So we know that both children, and women, and servants have often, against their fathers', and masters', and husbands' will, reached the highest degree of excellence.
---
This isn't a carte blanche veto power, because it is only about commands to sin. There is no veto for commands that the woman thinks unwise for the family.
"What is your Biblical evidence for the wife's veto?"
My reasoning is this: A being with free-will is responsible for his own soul. A woman has free-will. So a woman is responsible for her own soul. God treats Eve as if she has free-will.
The Lord commands us to obey the authorities over us, but the Apostles and other Christians saw fit to disobey some authorities when they conflicted with Christ. I'd place a wife with a husband who commands her to do evil in that category.
You're incorrect. Submission is submission. The choice has already been made. The point is: don't be dumb enough to marry a man who will order you to do that.
This is quite easy to say, but fails to account for the reality that people - particulary evil people - are often adept at hiding their true nature, at least for the time it takes to court and marry. It also doesn't account for issues such as mental illness. I know this first hand, as my father presented himself to my mother as an upstanding man, a devout Catholic, from a good family. She was not the only one fooled -- her family, including her strongly patriarchal father, accepted and approved of him. There were no indications, in the 6 months they courted, of the serious mental illness and personality defects that would plague him later in life. He was eventaully institutionalized. (She remained married, and faithful, until his death.)
How can a wife's duty to submit supercede God's most basic laws? The Ten Commandements, etc.? If my father, in his madness, ordered my mother to kill someone, or threatened to do so himself, she must submit? (He did that, and more, before being hospitalized.)
I firmly believe in wifely submission and men's headship and rightful place as the leader of his family, and despise feminist rebelion (and feminsits in general). And I also realize that the example of my family is extreme. But examining extreme cirumstances can help understand deeper truth, so I'm interested in your thoughts. Is there NO place for the dictates of a woman's conscience, once she has married?
Thank you Vox for the kind words and linkage.
You're incorrect. Submission is submission. The choice has already been made. The point is: don't be dumb enough to marry a man who will order you to do that.
I'm not convinced of this, but the point about warning women about the leader they choose is deadly serious either way. Much of the intent of no fault divorce is to allow a "second chance" to protect women who choose badly. Aside from the fact that this leads women (and men) into sin, from a practical perspective it still doesn't solve the problem. We've removed the fear of making a bad choice without removing the spiritual or temporal costs of marrying a man not fit to lead her.
@TZ
wives will be judged on their ability to submit, not how often they are riht when second guessing.
This is a truly excellent point.
By the way, speaking of omegas circling the camp hoping to find a shortcut to manhood, I've implemented a policy of tough love regarding Matt King.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/submission-is-something-a-wife-must-voluntarily-offer/#comment-90703
Creating his own blog would of course only be a baby step towards becoming his own man, but he needs to start somewhere.
tz says:
"Should a wife obey the bible - sola scriptura - or her husband? This is a microcosm of the Reformation and counter-reformation."
I'm not sure that the wives are up against that dichotomy. It's not like the husbands are saying, "Honey, you have two choices: it's me or it's Jesus! If you won't submit to me, then GTFO!"
In some cases--where perhaps she married a stone atheist and then received Christ while married--that may be the case, but I doubt that most Christian wives are stuck with that dilemma.
It's more the other way around: these days, Christian wives are always looking for a way out of submitting to their husbands, just as the Pharisees of old were always trying to establish "acceptable grounds" for divorce. When they tried to force Jesus to pick a side, He effectively told them, "Wrong question!"
As Vox correctly pointed out: a married woman's duty to submit to her husband is not contingent on the husband leading to his wife's satisfaction.
I would also add that the husband's Ephesians 5 duty--to love his wife as Christ loved the Church is--not contingent on his wife submitting to his satisfaction.
Sadly, today, as Dalrock and Vox--and others--have pointed out, pastors rarely have the balls to stand up to their own wives, let alone the women on the key church committees who have the power to fire those psators.
Honey, you have two choices: it's me or it's Jesus!
It's the me-way or the J.C. way!
We've removed the fear of making a bad choice without removing the spiritual or temporal costs of marrying a man not fit to lead her.
Dr. Laura is one of the few public figures who will chastise women for choosing badly. It's entertaining to listen to the gasps of astonishment as she dresses down one of her callers for marrying a bad man and creating children with him. Here this poor woman expected sympathy for divorcing a horrible man and breaking up her family only to find out that she has full responsibility for making such a crummy choice to begin with. It's especially wonderful how Dr. Laura turns "a woman's power to choose" into a woman's FULL responsibility for bringing children into a horrible mess. She'll point out that the woman had all the power over her own body, so she bears ALL the responsibility for her children suffering in the aftermath. The indignant gibbering that usually follows this revelation is priceless.
Women think they are strong, empowered, independent, free to make their own choices, but they are thunderstruck when anyone tries to hold them accountable for their strong, empowered, independent choices. The paradox would be funny if the consequences weren't so deadly serious.
There is a creational pattern to the biblical head of household principle. The headship of Ephesians 5 stands with 1 Corinthians 11. Paul states that the appointive headship of the man applies in worship as well as in the home. The problem in Corinth was that women there had stepped out of the relationship assigned to them by the Creator. They were asserting their "freedom" by praying and prophesying with uncovered heads like the men (11:4). But, says Paul, the "newness of the kingdom" does not do away with the creational pattern. There is an order of headship which endures.
Men who find themselves in positions of leadership and authority must assume the attitude which Jesus Himself requires: "...rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the one who serves" (Luke 22:26). Christian leadership and service must model Him.
So, the harpy who screeches at the notion that she must submit should be reminded that submission is also required of the husband.
I'd agree with the contention that the husband cannot righteously force a wife to commit something the Bible plainly teaches is sinful.
She can separate from him, or submit meekly to him that she is willing to accept beating, mocking, or other punishment but will not commit the sin.
I know several couples where the wife converted the husband by being willing to be beaten, suffer abuse from the husband, rather than submit to something THE HUSBAND knew conflicted with the Bible.
But her attitude, the fact that she submitted in all other areas, that she did her very best in all things, and the fact that she with great courage accepted the consequences of her actions.....combined with the Holy Spirit finally broke through his heart of stone.
But the modern Western "in your face" lack of submission displayed so often in christian circles is not going to win any hearts.
At the risk of offending those who have relegated contemporary Christian music to the metaphorical bottom of the barrel of divine music - the song "Lead Me" by Sanctus Real is IMO a great song addressing the very issue we are discussing. The song is a call to men to stand strong, to sacrifice, to lead and to fight...because the family needs this from their head of household. Not a pussy-whipped, fanny-pack wearing, feminist defending, scripture despising, tea drinking, silk pajama wearing, chest waxed shell of man. Love, sacrifice, defend and fight...
@Amir
I'm not sure that the wives are up against that dichotomy. It's not like the husbands are saying, "Honey, you have two choices: it's me or it's Jesus! If you won't submit to me, then GTFO!"
By the same token, notice that while "abuse" is waved around constantly, the argument is not about what a wife should do with a truly abusive husband. Abuse is a canard and a segway to rebelling against an imperfect husband. There are important theological questions regarding if submission includes submitting when directed to commit clear cut sin, and what to do about truly abusive husbands. But I think we need to be careful not to take the bait and let these become the focus of the discussion on submission of wives. 99% of the problem is wives looking for excuses to not submit when the husband isn't (truly) abusive and leading her clearly into sin.
Modern Christians are obsessed with finding small faults with husbands and using those to foment 3 minutes hate against headship. This is as I mentioned in the section Vox quoted why Fireproof and Courageous are so wildly popular, and why Dennis Rainey's Stepping Up™ book and video series will no doubt be celebrated in a church near you. Note that in three examples I just referenced none of the husbands are failing in the kinds of ways a father would lose sleep over regarding his daughter marrying. In Fireproof the husband is a leader of men and very successful. His faults are wanting to buy a boat, watching some online porn, and objecting to his feminist wife's sass. Of the three, only one is a sin yet Christians everywhere celebrate the wife's use of divorce to bring him to heel. For Courageous the husband is again a respected leader in the community, and an excellent father who teaches his children about Christ and is very involved with their lives. He is vilified for not dancing in a parking lot with his very young daughter, letting her go to a peer's birthday party, and wanting to lead his son instead of follow.
What Christian do you know outside of the manosphere who doesn't love the messages of Fireproof and Courageous?
Stickwick says: "Dr. Laura is one of the few public figures who will chastise women for choosing badly. It's entertaining to listen to the gasps of astonishment as she dresses down one of her callers for marrying a bad man and creating children with him. Here this poor woman expected sympathy for divorcing a horrible man and breaking up her family only to find out that she has full responsibility for making such a crummy choice to begin with. It's especially wonderful how Dr. Laura turns "a woman's power to choose" into a woman's FULL responsibility for bringing children into a horrible mess. She'll point out that the woman had all the power over her own body, so she bears ALL the responsibility for her children suffering in the aftermath. The indignant gibbering that usually follows this revelation is priceless. "
I used to listen to Dr. Laura on one of the local stations. I've always said that anyone who was interested in doing any counseling needs to listen to her program. Not because she was always right--she screwed up from time to time--but rather because few people can cut through the BS and fired the truth straight down the middle like Dr. Laura.
A counselor needs to be willing to be assertive and do exactly that. Anything else will be a disservice to the client.
"Women think they are strong, empowered, independent, free to make their own choices, but they are thunderstruck when anyone tries to hold them accountable for their strong, empowered, independent choices. The paradox would be funny if the consequences weren't so deadly serious."
Priceless.
Dalrock says: "By the same token, notice that while "abuse" is waved around constantly, the argument is not about what a wife should do with a truly abusive husband. Abuse is a canard and a segway to rebelling against an imperfect husband. There are important theological questions regarding if submission includes submitting when directed to commit clear cut sin, and what to do about truly abusive husbands. But I think we need to be careful not to take the bait and let these become the focus of the discussion on submission of wives. 99% of the problem is wives looking for excuses to not submit when the husband isn't (truly) abusive and leading her clearly into sin. "
No question about it. That is what I meant when I said, "Christian wives are always looking for a way out of submitting to their husbands, just as the Pharisees of old were always trying to establish "acceptable grounds" for divorce".
Sadly, these women end up doing a disservice to those who really are victims of abuse; they also bear false witness against their husbands.
Making matters worse, churches often play along--even though they should know better--and sanctify the practice. As a result, they end up "calling evil 'good' and calling good 'evil'".
Sadly, Dalrock, most Christians I know LOVE Fireproof and Courageous.
I saw Fireproof and had serious problems with it, for the same reasons you cite.
I have not, however, seen Courageous, so I cannot comment on it.
Interesting - if Vox is correct, then several of those traditionally accepted as saints by the early church were wrong. There were several 1st century martyrs that were killed because they would not worship idols as their husband commanded.
@Amir
I have not, however, seen Courageous, so I cannot comment on it.
If you are interested my summary of Courageous and the problems with the movie is linked in the section of text Vox quotes at the top of the page (the same is true for Fireproof).
With this I'll once again thank Vox and leave the remaining discussion to his other readers.
@Dalrock: I've read your assessment, and--from what I have seen from the other movies by that outfit (Fireproof, Flywheel, Facing the Giants)--I am not surprised.
They have a tendency to oversimplify the plots--my wife was angry with them over Facing the Giants, because we are having fertility issues and they GROSSLY oversimplified that part of the movie.
And yes, they tend to be way too hard on men, lacking the balance with respect to the faults of the ladies.
I'd love to see them make a movie that deals with a woman who files divorce--claiming 'abuse'--from a Christian husband who, whatever his faults, is neither abusive nor adulterous, with the plot showing the real cost to the kids, the family, and the Church.
THAT is what the Church needs to confront.
Facing the Giants was a terrible movie overall. The acting was terrible, the plot was already done x1000, and the resolutions were cheap and silly.
And don't get me started on the main character crying all the damn time.
"That's the point. We don't accept the claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Christ established. By your own logic, that would be the Orthodox Church.
As Nate so loves to point out, Roman Catholics are the original schismatics."
Hardly. The Bible succinctly says in Matt. 16:18 that Peter is the head of the Church, and that the Church cannot Fail.
Christ again demonstrated Peter's headship when he told him 3 times to feed His sheep.
If you believe the Bible you must be a Catholic.
Btw, it was Mark of Ephesus who caused the Orthodox schism from the Catholic Church. All the Eastern Bishops had agreed to reunion with Rome except he. The Orthodox decided to follow him rather than Christ who requires that they submit to the See of Peter and be ONE.
Undoubtedly Mark is roasting in hell for causing the division which endures to our day.But will soon end as the Orthodox reunite with Christ's Church.
How about a nice, juicy post at VP on Roman Catholicism, Vox? We have had these skirmishes for all those years I've been here. Isn't it time for an all-out war? To clear the air or something.
Vox said...
A husband cannot legitimately order his wife to become a hooker to boost the family income. But on ordinary matters, wives will be judged on their ability to submit, not how often they are riht when second guessing.
You're incorrect. Submission is submission. The choice has already been made. The point is: don't be dumb enough to marry a man who will order you to do that.
Plenty of women do make that choice; their "husbands" are called pimps. Ironically, they submit better than many "good" Churchian women.
That's something to chew on... Like Dalrock, I'm not convinced either.
Is submission the same thing as complete and unqualified obedience? I just don't see it. Generally, when the Bible talks about one human submitting to another, it doesn't present it as robotic obedience. For example, we are told to submit to earthly authorities, but we are also told to obey God rather than man whenever there is a conflict.
I know that most of the time this is not a difference that matters, and we end up with red herring arguments, but if you approach it with logical absolutism then it becomes a rule that must pass any test. Does this include a husband instructing a woman to mutilate her own children, or to help the man sexually abuse children? These are not complete red herrings, as they have in fact happened. Literally *any* behavior her husband requests is now required of her by God?
Now I know, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Jephthah had to sacrifice his daughter, but this was in regard to direct statements rather than generalities.
If your take on it is the case, then literally anywhere God tells one human to submit to another it is meant as completely unqualified obedience to every request, no matter how bizarre. God puts elders in authority over members of a church. Can that elder now require literally anything of his charges?
99% of the problem is wives looking for excuses to not submit when the husband isn't (truly) abusive and leading her clearly into sin.
Right. People always try to take these discussions down the rabbit hole of extreme exceptions ("What if her doctor says there's a 50% chance that sex will cause her heart to explode, and her husband demands it anyway?"). In real life, women aren't refusing to obey because their husbands are commanding them to be prostitutes. They're refusing because their husbands tell them to have dinner on the table when they get home, or to stop buying candy for the kids, or whatever. Not commands that are dangerous or sinful, but commands they simply don't like.
They're refusing because their husbands tell them to have dinner on the table when they get home, or to stop buying candy for the kids, or whatever. Not commands that are dangerous or sinful, but commands they simply don't like.
On the other hand, it is too easy to write the principle off as preposterous on its face, if it leads to absurdities like having to murder at a schizophrenic husband's command.
So, I would say that the limit is in demanding obvious sin, but never in an issue of prudence. And if you think it's an issue of sin and not prudence, consider very hard if you are willing to make that claim to God's face.
If you are, then cast your lot and hope like hell (pun intended) that your hamster didn't deceive you.
"How about a nice, juicy post at VP on Roman Catholicism, Vox? We have had these skirmishes for all those years I've been here. Isn't it time for an all-out war? To clear the air or something."
Another juicy post with 300 comments in 20 minutes. I'd rather read a debate. If you're going for the "all-out war" option, that is.
Another juicy post with 300 comments in 20 minutes.
The problem is, the posts are never openly antagonistic (as far as I can recall), although I remember Vox's position on Roman Catholicism from a comment way back. One always feels a bit iffy in those skirmishes in otherwise neutral original posts, feeling that they are OT and will piss Vox off any minute now.
So, I say, let's make it an open war. That way the rules of engagement are clear.
"You're wrong. She has no veto on his commands; this is the Churchian heresy. This is precisely why women are told not to be unequally yoked. She condemned herself to such obedience the moment she married a man in rebellion."
It depends on what we mean by "veto". There are a lot of stories in the Bible about righteous men and women refusing to involve themselves in something unrighteous that a legitimate but evil ruler has told them to do (Daniel, David, Elijah...not to mention nearly everyone who ever dealt with God.). I can't think of any that include actual rebellion.
The form of submissive rejection is: "My lord, I do not want to displease you, but this thing I cannot do. What else may I do to placate you?" And they subject themselves to whatever punishment the leader might dole out.
Applying this pattern of servant-to-master relationships to marriage is easy...but actually doing it is very hard on people's wicked little hearts.
@Cane Caldo,
Exactly. There is a way to be submissive and respectful while refusing to do something. I've had plenty of employers ask me to do questionable things, and the way I approached it never raised the boss' hackles. I did not judge them or tell them how to run their companies, but just said something like "I'm sorry, but because of my beliefs this is something I can't do. I'll understand if you have to take me off the project." Veto is a different concept. it means you can tell the other party what they can't do, which is something many Christian wives bray about these days: "I used my veto power and told him NO motorcycle!"
@VD, it depends if you consider the passage in Matt at caesera phillipi to be parallel to Isaiah 22 where the prime minister is given "the keys to the kingdom". They were given to Peter (cephos, rock), not to all the Apostles. That is the split where I would be orthodox if I didn't accept a literal interpretation of Scripture. If the Apostles, the original Bishops were all equal, then the Orthodox church is correct.
But let me take on "Submission".
The first choice a potential wife (and/or her husband) must make is which authority to submit to. That authority, a Capital-T Tradition will define if there is any submission, or any limits to submission. She must first submit to that OTHER authority and only then can the question of her husband be raised.
(Perhaps if a husband who ordered a wife to murder her children would be a better example than becoming a whore).
But what can that other authority be? If you say "Scripture", there are thousands of differences in interpretation. I can make rational cases for infant baptism, adult baptism, sprinkling, immersion, and whether Baptism is required and a part of salvation or an irrelevant ceremony. That issue is important enough to have divided the protestant denominations for centuries.
Even if we dispense with the problem of interpretation and priority of verses, if the source of the original authority for submission to a Husband is sola scriptura, and the husband's demand clearly and seriously violates sola scriptura, how can it be submission - she must violate the very principle that gives HER (not her husband!) the authority to be obedient.
For even submission itself involves authority. I am not told to submit to evil, to sin, to the devil, the world, the flesh. I can only submit to LAWFUL authority. God has in giving the command to submit specifically given the wife the AUTHORITY to submit to her husband - to consider his decisions, even ill thought out ones - as law. That it would be his responsibility, not hers.
Let me try another example. If the husband demanded the wife become an atheist? Renounce Christ? Blaspheme the Holy Spirit? The only reason to be under authority is that to remain in a state of grace requires obedience. If that authority says you must lose your salvation - not any specific sin, but demands that the wife intentionally damn her soul - and maybe try to damn the souls of her children?
But I need to return to the problem of interpretation. Paul commands women to cover their heads. The only time I've seen women cover their heads is at a traditional (tridentine rite, 1962 latin) mass. How do you weigh that verse with the verse on submission? Is it part of Greco-Roman pagan culture? Is it a permanent command for all time? Merely a discipline?
I do wish the Bible was clearer, that reason alone could provide a single specific interpretation for any issue. Instead, there are obvious things it labels as evil, but those even the pagans think are evil (though they don't always practice righteousness). There are enough things clear that no one obeys anyway. And there is a lot of incompleteness and ambiguity.
A wife's submission to her husband is not authorized and/or demanded by the Bible itself, only by certain specific Traditions. Just like the varying interpretations on Baptism. But there seems to be no requirement to stick with one Tradition - one can use reason - or the rationalization hamster - to switch. If the family changes on baptism, the infants can be re-baptized as adults. Immersed if they were sprinkled. The submission of the wife will be as mercurial as the authority the doctrine of submission is based on.
And scripture is authoritative, but only with a superior and external interpretative authority. I accept that the churches with 7 sacraments and Apostolic succession are such. Are there others (if so on what basis)?
@Emrys Myrddin
Let me state the form of the paradox in your terms.
The wife is commanded by sola scriptura to obey her husband, and lets say totally and completely. Whatever he wants she must do.
The husband tells the wife to REJECT and CONTRADICT sola scriptura
How is the wife to obey such a command?
@Dalrock - you have done a very great service by reviewing Courageous and Fireproof (Craven and Firebombed). I only saw clips and heard the chatter of the christian hen-house, but was bothered by something - it was before I found the manosphere. You dissected them.
And for those who are adventurous to explore paradox and married with a submissive wife, husbands, order your wife to disobey you for the next 72 hours.
(Remembering a scene from Taming of the Shrew where the husband demands the wife call the sun the moon).
God and nature has every appearance of being rational and reasonable. Although it is often we cannot understand all of his commands or everything that he causes or permits to happen, he cannot contradict himself (see Aquinas).
Rationality would be to have enumerated commands or even those based on love acting within reason (love God with everything, neighbor as thyself). Among those commands can be that the wife be submissive, but it would be a contradiction if that command (even if only in execution) is superior to every other command God ever gave.
Further, the Bible on submission of children to parents is far clearer, more common, less ambiguous, and does not admit of age. For now consider men as wives have to submit to their husbands over Fathers.
You cannot choose your parents. So there cannot be a question of choosing to submit. It is a command and stronger.
What if your 80 year old Mother becomes an atheist demands her son reject Christ? I could restate the paradoxes in this form too.
Also if you wish submission, remember Romans 13:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Submit to Obama anyone? If I can make the case that a wife should become a whore upon the command of her husband, there would be no basis for civil disobedience.
If you only only submit to just laws, laws in line with the natural law, lawful authority, then a wife's submission to her husband should be governed by the same rules.
If the Christian churches do not turn around and restore male family leadership, Islam will eventually take the place of Christianity. Men who are increasingly being battered and rendered second class citizens by government implemented female supremacy will finally find an attractive refuge.
Peter told Christians to "[b]e subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme .... Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:13,17, ESV). The Roman emperor at the time he was writing was Nero, and from 1 Peter 1 it's clear that he was writing this after Nero had started persecuting Christians. Which neatly demolishes the excuse about "abuse", incidentally: 1 Peter 3 starts with "likewise", and is thus clearly a continuation of the thought in 1 Peter 2 about obeying the emperor (even when the emperor is unjust), and slaves obeying unjust masters.
However, Peter himself refused to obey authority on one occasion: when he was ordered not to witness about Jesus. "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge." (Acts 4:19)
So the Biblical principle seems to be clear: obedience to unfair commands is required, but not obedience when commanded to sin. Some will take the latter as an excuse to disobey in situations where obedience would not be sinful, but their disobedience does not change the Biblical principle. Where there is a clear conflict between the commands of men and the commands of God, it is God who should always be obeyed -- but where there is no conflict, then the human authority over us (whatever it may be) should also be obeyed.
But I need to return to the problem of interpretation. Paul commands women to cover their heads. The only time I've seen women cover their heads is at a traditional (tridentine rite, 1962 latin) mass.
My wife covers her head at church.
Be the above as it may, the main point of the post still stands: according to the Bible, there is no weaseling out of wifely submission just because he isn't quite what he should be. A Christian wife who refuses to buy her husband beer or throws away his cigarettes some other such puritanical censorious action should not be praised. The bar for refusing to follow a husband's orders is set extremely high, not about how it makes her feel or whether she disagrees with his judgment about something.
@VD
Plenty of women do make that choice; their "husbands" are called pimps. Ironically, they submit better than many "good" Churchian women.
There is serious irony here. Also, in the cases of women who help their husbands commit serious crimes, or even engage in sexual child abuse. You have noted before how women are more likely to follow a strong bad man than a weak good one. In that sense, the "what if" arguments above (mine included) are mostly red herrings. In reality, the situation is usually the reverse of what everyone wrings their hands about: the good, hard-working husband is ratted out simply for telling his wife he wants her to lose weight or spend less money, meanwhile some psychopath can convince 18 young women to live with him and murder whoever he says.
@Beau - then you have a very holy wife.
@rmunn - Peter's language is no more exclusive than Paul's. If the argument that Paul meant wives should be submissive to evil husbands, then Peter should equally be saying to be submissive to evil emperors. But that is the problem - you feel free to add or remove cultural ornamentation to the plain words when that sounds better and to go for a strict, literal interpretation when that seems better.
If anyone can come up with a set of axioms and/or a computer program that I can run the bible through and it will result in a perfectly correct, consistent interpretation with neither ambiguity nor contradiction anywhere I'll switch to sola scriptura. It is never perfect cold programmatic logic that classifies verses and gives meaning, it is always vague excuses and inconsistent opinions. Or some Tradition - be it Catholic, or one of the Protestant Fathers.
However there is one final implication to strict headship.
Any feminized marriage can be turned with one sentence to be a biblical marriage - the gushy gamma merely needs to command his wife to - under submission - act like a feminist and presto! The bitchiest wife is now happy to be completely obedient. He can even command her to divorce him if she doesn't like it. Add one minute to Fireproof and there can be no objections. Add a similar minute to Courageous. The husband tells the wife to be the head. The wife is saved, the marriage is now perfectly biblical, though the husband might be in trouble with God.
Actually it is worse than that - many a gushy gamma in a feminized marriage has already made it clear that his greatest desire other than for occasional sex is for his wife to be a liberal feminist bitch, and will often even write different words with exactly that meaning. And the wives are perfectly submissive and obedient to that command!
Therefore, under strict submission, most feminized churches have marriages as or more biblical with wives as or more submissive than the more traditional churches.
At least if doesn't matter what the man orders - no matter how evil - as long as the wife obeys. Yes, even be obedient if he insists on transferring the headship role to the wife.
I should also summarize the argument.
The wife must first submit to God.
Since most are not mystics, this means submitting to an earthly temporal authority which represents God such as scripture, and/or Tradition and/or the Church.
It is only that earthly representative which contains the command to submit to the husband. And it is just one of the commandments and one which is neither prominent nor of the highest gravity.
If/when a husband orders a wife SPECIFICALLY to cease submitting to either God or his earthly authority, he has broken the chain upon which his wife's submission to him is based.
He has, in effect, divorced her since marriage is also part of that now broken chain. I don't think there is any requirement for an ex-wife to obey an ex-husband.
Or put another way, to obey her husband, she must break one of two or more commandments of God as revealed in his earthly authority. They are not all equal. She must break the lesser commandment - that which will result in the least evil, and that can be the command to be submissive if the alternative is a greater evil.
@tz
If anyone can come up with a set of axioms and/or a computer program that I can run the bible through and it will result in a perfectly correct, consistent interpretation with neither ambiguity nor contradiction anywhere I'll switch to sola scriptura. It is never perfect cold programmatic logic that classifies verses and gives meaning, it is always vague excuses and inconsistent opinions. Or some Tradition - be it Catholic, or one of the Protestant Fathers.
Why does that "or" exist above? The church traditions are every bit as full of vague excuses and inconsistent opinions. A life in pursuit of truth must needs be a life spent in searching, argumentation and self-examination. There's no way around it.
Perfect and programmatic logic only exists in small and mostly useless computer programs. See Gödel's incompleteness theorem or Russel's paradox. At some point you have to use some common sense, even though that can't be perfectly mathematically defined.
@Beau - then you have a very holy wife.
The cover is the long hair - 1 Corinthians 11:15
As for those arguing on whether a woman must obey her husband's command to sin, let me remind you first that Paul's letter addressed to Christians.
So common sense dictates that a Christian husband will not command his wife to commit sin.
Submission also does not mean that the wife should not be helping her husband avoid straying from the path of righteousness.
Vox,
WomenRuinEverythingism:
9-Year Old Banned From Library Contest For Winning
You're incorrect. Submission is submission. The choice has already been made. The point is: don't be dumb enough to marry a man who will order you to do that.
By your own definition of morality (which I accept as well) that morality is whatever God says it is, this is demonstrably false. God has declared evil the act of being a prostitute or making a woman into a prostitute as it is sexual sin. It is not logically possible for a lesser authority than God to impose a binding moral obligation to go against the Will of God.
Perhaps it will be helpful, in terms of Catholic teaching, to look at the Encyclical Castii Connubii of Pope Pius XI. It was issued to set straight the understanding of marriage and obligation against the feminism and licentiousness of the age.
A partial quote on obedience:
"25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: "Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,"[28] express not only a law of justice but of charity.
26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."[29]
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
29. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: "The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."[30]
30. These, then, are the elements which compose the blessing of conjugal faith: unity, chastity, charity, honorable noble obedience, which are at the same time an enumeration of the benefits which are bestowed on husband and wife in their married state, benefits by which the peace, the dignity and the happiness of matrimony are securely preserved and fostered. Wherefore it is not surprising that this conjugal faith has always been counted amongst the most priceless and special blessings of matrimony."
The problem with wifely submission in modern women is this: when they refuse to do something, they do it with an underlying attitude of superiority. Of judgment. The hypergamous nature doesn't just peek out from under her eyes, it is shouted by every cell in her body.
If they would humbly submit AND refuse to do something which is sinful, while making it clear in word choice, face expression, body language, conversations with all others, that they have submitted, then the reaction would be quite different from the husband.
But that is almost impossible for a modern churchianity feminism soaked woman to do, since her entire culture has been steeped in "woman power" since her birth.
My wife wears her hat to church as a symbol of authority on her head (1 Corinthians 11:10) signifying:
1. Marital leadership is a man's Bible-based Christian duty.
2. The modern Church is actively setting itself against the Bible in this regard.
3. Female marital submission is not dependent upon a woman's approval of her husband's leadership.
Without words, every week, her hat proclaims her allegiance and submission to authority.
You're incorrect. Submission is submission. The choice has already been made. The point is: don't be dumb enough to marry a man who will order you to do that.
...
You're wrong. She has no veto on his commands; this is the Churchian heresy. This is precisely why women are told not to be unequally yoked. She condemned herself to such obedience the moment she married a man in rebellion.
What is your Biblical evidence for the wife's veto?
Where is the Biblical evidence for a woman choosing her own husband?
Genesis 24:57-58 Laban enquires of Rebekah whether she chooses to go with Isaac's servant and marry Isaac.
Amen! Carry on.
@rycamor - true, one must individually keep searching, but such a search is futile unless you accept some compass or GPS. The map might suggest one but it is up to you to find one and see if the GPS and map together lead you to the right place.
@matamoros - right on quote. Now if I could just find a woman who accepted it.
The wife is the backup server.
@Beau - and those who sit behind her?
@VD You're wrong. She has no veto on his commands; this is the Churchian heresy. This is precisely why women are told not to be unequally yoked. She condemned herself to such obedience the moment she married a man in rebellion.
What is your Biblical evidence for the wife's veto?
It is irrelevant if something unconstitutional is vetoed or signed, it remains invalid. However as it would be prudent for the President to veto tyrannical idiocy that the legislature sends to his desk, a wife should veto evil.
A husband can change as much as a wife so the matter of selection is not relevant. A man can marry an obedient wife who then tunes into daytime TV. The marriage and vow of obedience only has authority and (canonically) legal and moral force only in the context of obedience to God, i.e. the command could be stated more properly "If you would obey me [God], you will obey and defer to your husband as it is ONE of my commands".
Interestingly, the first reading at Mass this week is from Judges where Jephthah vows to offer as a burnt sacrifice the first person who exited his door. This was an evil oath, and God judged it by making his only daughter that person. But this is an example of the "God can define whatever he wants" as Vox often says - he sets the rules and can set them absolutely.
A wife can exceed the marital vow of obedience by vowing to God to obey her husband in the more absolute sense, but then she should prepare for herself and her children to be offered up as a burnt offering.
Peter Kreeft has a very recent Video about the Authority of the church, but he makes the point that Jesus said authority was for service (Jesus washed the feet of the disciples as an example). It is only 40 minutes long, but I think offers a lot of things which provoke thought on authority and submission, his defense of Church authority is in that context, but the meaning of "authority". Jesus had authority in his total submission to the father. The centurion with the sick servant understood authority.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.