Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

ralliann said:
Do you think Jewish women are abused? Since Paul gives Sarah as an example, Looking to Judaism and the marital relationship in that culture is a start.

Obviously some are. Some aren't. You can't take Judaism as a monolith.

ralliann · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
Obviously some are. Some aren't. You can't take Judaism as a monolith.

They are the people of the book. Some are abused I am sure, but it is not approved of by their culture.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:

Peter is making an argument similar to Paul's for mutual love and service in marriage. And, in particular, seems concerned for wives married to unbelieving husbands. Conforming to the social norm of male control would have kept those women safe(r).

tall73 said:

So to be clear, you think the texts are fine, and inspired, but just the interpretation that is the issue?

Paidiske said:

Yes.

Paidiske said:

I would encourage and help her to leave.

I said I would encourage her and help her to leave as well, and have done so. But that is in a far different situation than Peter.

But do you think that is what Peter did in the passage? Did he encourage her and help her to leave?

I don't think it is what Peter did in the passage. And I think the reason he didn't is there was nowhere to go. The reason for him writing about the trial they were going through is that persecution was happening in the various provinces written to. Nowhere that she went would those in authority protect her from abuse. And so the inspired text gave the best council that could be given in that situation.

Now if you agree the text is inspired, do you think God made a mistake? He didn't tell her to flee. He didn't tell any of those being persecuted to flee. Because they had nowhere to go. Instead he told them:

1 Peter 3:13-17 13 And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (NKJV)

1 Peter 4:12-16 12 Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; 13 but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. 14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. (NKJV)

You said:

Paidiske said:

Telling her that she should hope to show amazing love to her abuser is downright irresponsible and dangerous.

If you are going to say to imitate Jesus' leadership, then you cannot say that. And Peter certainly did not say that:

Luke 23:34 34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” (NKJV)

1 Peter 3:17-18 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit (NKJV)

That is amazing love shown to abusers.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Ephesians 5:21-24

21 submitting to one another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

tall73 said:

The church is said to be subject to Christ. So how can the head concept be divorced completely from such considerations?

Paidiske said:

I would argue it's an analogy with limitations. Again, you have to read this section as governed by verse 21; submission in marriage is mutual

There are mutual elements, certainly, as I noted Jesus' words about true leadership being servant leadership. But Christ is nonetheless leading.

And the mutual submission you speak of does not lead to statements such as "husbands, submit to your wives in everything." The texts are consistently the other direction. And while there is an analogy, showing that the husband should show love as Christ did, there is also a rather short simile, that is more direct:

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

If Christ can lead without being abusive, then leading is not equivalent to abuse. And the text appeals to wives to submit to their own husbands. Which means that Paul must not have thought that is by its nature abuse, or he would not have said it, and it would not be inspired.

tall73 said

Let's clarify, before moving on to the analogy. Do you voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ? If so, is that relationship abusive?

Paidiske said:

Yes, I voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ

Then voluntary submission to spiritual leadership is not abuse.

Paidiske said:

But a husband is not God.

Very true! If it said submit to Christ as you submit to Christ, it would be redundant. But instead it says:

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

Nor does it say:

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives and husbands submit to each other in everything

You say the following.

A one-sided relationship between two mentally competent human adults in which one is supposed to lead, and the other submit, over a lifetime, backed up with the claim that to ever deviate from that is to disobey God, is abusive.

But the text still says this:

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

I do not see your standard in the text. I do see that it says as the church submits to Christ, let wives be submissive to their husbands.

If your standard is not what God describes, and you accept the text as inspired, then you may need to revisit your standard.

Moreover, we are called to submit to authorities established by God, in a continually submissive, one-directional relationship, for life, and they are not even guaranteed to be just (or in some cases competent). To do otherwise is said to be resisting the ordinance of God:

Romans 13:1-5

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. (NKJV)

Peter, in the same letter as his advice to wives, also states this:

1 Peter 2:13-16

13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. (NKJV)

And in all these relationships of submission, we see that we submit first to God. Peter and Paul could say submit to the authorities. But they both died at the hands of the authorities, because they could not obey when told not to proclaim the name of Christ. The authority of the law is delegated authority, and God's authority trumps it. Peter said it clearly when commanded not to preach in the name of Christ:

Acts 4:17-20

17 But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name.” 18 So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” (NKJV)

You mentioned the case of Vashti. She could not submit to her husband's command if it violated principles instituted by God. We don't know enough about her to determine her relation to the true God. But we can certainly say she was following a higher principle laid down by Him, and was acting holy, in her protest.

I mentioned the case of Abigail as well, who was doing God's will, as David testified, though it meant not submitting to her husband.

In the same way, Peter's command was not without limits. He indicated the wife was to be chaste. She could not disregard the higher authority.

Paul likewise was in prison often for his testimony to Christ. So that his submission to the authorities was only in the context of his greater submission to God.

The submit in everything does not include those things that would go against God's commands. The wife is submitting to Christ first.

And the husband's leadership is not based on his own whim. That is why Paul spells out at such length the nature that leadership should take, comparing it to that of Christ.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
But do you think that is what Peter did in the passage? Did he encourage her and help her to leave?

I think Peter did what he could, in the situation he was in, to encourage everyone into the healthiest and safest situation possible.

tall73 said:
Now if you agree the text is inspired, do you think God made a mistake?

Again, I object to this kind of question. It only serves to cast doubt on your interlocuter's credibility. Disagreeing on the meaning of a particular verse is not some kind of "Gotcha! You don't really believe God meant this!" kind of moment.

I am arguing in good faith, accepting the inspiration of Scripture and its usefulness for teaching, correction, training in righteousness, etc. That does not mean I accept shallow proof texting in service of a deeply flawed argument.

tall73 said:
If you are going to say to imitate Jesus' leadership, then you cannot say that.

Yes, I can say that. I said it, and I stand by it. There is a difference between accepting suffering for a redemptive purpose, and insisting on suffering that serves no purpose.

tall73 said:
And the mutual submission you speak of does not lead to statements such as "husbands, submit to your wives in everything." The texts are consistently the other direction.

Which was necessary in that social context, with the very different conditions in marriage for husbands and wives. But in telling husbands to love their wives, to serve them as Christ served, and so on, the thrust of the message is the same; this is not to be a relationship of hierarchy, dominance and control.

tall73 said:
If Christ can lead without being abusive, then leading is not equivalent to abuse.

However, telling women that they cannot exercise leadership alongside their husbands, cannot have a stake in decision making with their husbands, and must submit to whatever limitations or coercions he decides, is setting up an abusive dynamic.

tall73 said:
And the text appeals to wives to submit to their own husbands. Which means that Paul must not have thought that is by its nature abuse, or he would not have said it, and it would not be inspired.

Paul's culture did not have the same conceptual framework for abuse that we have, so he did not express it in the terms we might use now. But I would argue that the vision of marriage Paul is putting forward is not one in which husbands control their wives, but one in which spouses work together in life.

tall73 said:
Then voluntary submission to spiritual leadership is not abuse.

But telling women they must "submit in everything" is not the same thing. And it is setting up an abusive situation.

tall73 said:
If your standard is not what God describes, and you accept the text as inspired, then you may need to revisit your standard.

I do not concede that "my standard" and the text are incompatible.

tall73 said:
The submit in everything does not include those things that would go against God's commands.

And what about when submitting in everything directly violates the wife's dignity and agency as a human being made in God's image? It may not be a direct command, but it's certainly violating a Scriptural vision for human flourishing in Christ.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:

Was it God's will that Sarah, among other holy women of old, submitted to their husbands?

Paidiske said:

I would note also that what he particularly speaks of here, addressing her husband as "lord," was simply a way of being polite and respectful in that culture. We see it in many interactions, and not just between husbands and wives. Rebekah and Abraham's servant (before she knew who he was), are an example. And Rachel and Laban. And many examples between men, also. This is not necessarily an indicator of a relationship in which one person is given control over the other, but it is an indicator of a degree of respect and deference being shown.

Peter does not say that Sarah was just being polite. You did not actually quote the text. But here is what it says:

1 Peter 3:5-6

5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror. (NKJV)

So when the text, which you have acknowledged as inspired, says Sarah obeyed Abraham, and Peter held her up as an example of submission. do you think Peter was only saying to be polite?

Miles · May 20, 2024

I would think this kind of submission has more in common with submitting to Christ. Not submitting to idols, other gods, or the like. A woman submitting to her husband rather than submitting to other men.

This isn't a power play. Rather, more like how we submit to the Word of God. We go along with it because we see wisdom there and seek to build our lives on the strong foundation of our savior. That puts a lot of responsibility on the husband to live up to the task. It doesn't give him reason to push or bully his wife around. Rather, the opposite should be the case. Not a "might makes right" submission, but an "I like this program, I'll go along with it" kind of submission.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
I think Peter did what he could, in the situation he was in, to encourage everyone into the healthiest and safest situation possible.

Good, we agree.

Paidiske said:
Again, I object to this kind of question. It only serves to cast doubt on your interlocuter's credibility. Disagreeing on the meaning of a particular verse is not some kind of "Gotcha! You don't really believe God meant this!" kind of moment.

I am not trying to undermine your credibility. But if it is a different interpretation of the text, then it has to be interpreting what the text says. I have accepted your statement that you accept the inspiration of Scripture. And so I am going to ask you about the particulars of that Scripture, and I expect you will do the same.

And more to the point, on an essential aspect, we agree here. We both think Peter was constrained by the situation, and gave the best, inspired advice possible. But he did not tell them to flee, as we would, because that was not their situation. And so the only option left was to show Christ like behavior. And if because of that they suffered for Christ, they were blessed.

Paidiske said:
I am arguing in good faith, accepting the inspiration of Scripture and its usefulness for teaching, correction, training in righteousness, etc. That does not mean I accept shallow proof texting in service of a deeply flawed argument.

I did not say you have to accept my view. But if you wish to demonstrate I am proof texting, you need to address the details. That is the point of the discussion. When I thanked you for discussing the Scriptures on the subject, I meant it.

And I am glad we agree that the Scriptures are inspired. But if we disagree, and we clearly do, then one or both of us is not understanding God's intent in these Scriptures. So looking at the differences seems necessary.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
But if it is a different interpretation of the text, then it has to be interpreting what the text says.

I would add, within a canonical hermeneutic. And for me, that would include:
- that hierarchy in marriage is an artefact of the fall, not part of God's original intention for marriage.
- that in Christ, as the fall is overcome and humanity is restored, hierarchy in marriage is displaced by mutuality

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:

I would encourage and help her to leave.

I said I would encourage her and help her to leave as well, and have done so. But that is in a far different situation than Peter.

But do you think that is what Peter did in the passage? Did he encourage her and help her to leave?

I don't think it is what Peter did in the passage. And I think the reason he didn't is there was nowhere to go. The reason for him writing about the trial they were going through is that persecution was happening in the various provinces written to. Nowhere that she went would those in authority protect her from abuse. And so the inspired text gave the best council that could be given in that situation.

Now if you agree the text is inspired, do you think God made a mistake? He didn't tell her to flee. He didn't tell any of those being persecuted to flee. Because they had nowhere to go. Instead he told them:

1 Peter 3:13-17 13 And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (NKJV)

1 Peter 4:12-16 12 Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; 13 but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. 14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter. (NKJV)

Paidiske said:

Telling her that she should hope to show amazing love to her abuser is downright irresponsible and dangerous.

tall73 said:
If you are going to say to imitate Jesus' leadership, then you cannot say that.

Luke 23:34 34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” (NKJV)

1 Peter 3:17-18 17 For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit (NKJV)

That is amazing love shown to abusers.

Paidiske said:
Yes, I can say that. I said it, and I stand by it. There is a difference between accepting suffering for a redemptive purpose, and insisting on suffering that serves no purpose.

Peter didn't say that their suffering, if it should happen served no purpose. It was showing the love of Christ, following His example, and He said it glorified God.

Peter followed in Jesus' footsteps, and suffered for Christ. He invited them to do likewise--only if need be, given their situation.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
Peter didn't say that their suffering, if it should happen served no purpose. It was showing the love of Christ, following His example, and He said it glorified God.

No, I disagree. The suffering does not serve those purposes; their conduct in unavoidable suffering does.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:

If Christ can lead without being abusive, then leading is not equivalent to abuse.

Paidiske said:
However, telling women that they cannot exercise leadership alongside their husbands, cannot have a stake in decision making with their husbands, and must submit to whatever limitations or coercions he decides, is setting up an abusive dynamic.

Neither Paul nor Peter said that women cannot have a stake in decision making, or input in decision making.

Limits to submission were spelled out in regards to being chaste, etc. as well, so it was not just submitting to whatever coercion the husband came up with.

And the whole point of Paul spelling out at length the type of sacrificial love that Christ leads with, and urging husbands to the same, is to show that husbands don't have to coerce to lead, and should serve as Christ. But just as Christ still is head of the church, they are still head, but under His authority. And they still lead.

Paidiske said:
Paul's culture did not have the same conceptual framework for abuse that we have, so he did not express it in the terms we might use now. But I would argue that the vision of marriage Paul is putting forward is not one in which husbands control their wives, but one in which spouses work together in life.

I already mentioned no one is commanded to control in the text. The wives were urged to submit. And the husbands were urged to follow the example of Christ, giving themselves up for the sake of their spouse.

But if Christ can lead in servant leadership. and the text says for husbands to do the same, and for wives to submit to that, then we should live out that description of Christian love.

As to Paul's culture, he didn't write what the culture taught, but was counter-cultural, as we both agree, though we don't agree in all respects on the particulars.

And God is, as with everything, holy and just, and if He describes a husband loving as Christ loved the church, and wives submitting to that, then by definition it cannot be abuse. God may call us to endure suffering when need be. But He doesn't ordain it and describe it as his ideal.

And those who distort it to their own purposes are, once again, not calling into question the justness of what the Scriptures say, by their twisting of it.

Paidiske said:
But telling women they must "submit in everything" is not the same thing. And it is setting up an abusive situation.

Who said it? Paul, in Scripture, which we both have acknowledged is inspired.

There are limits, as we submit to God. But more importantly, the husband is to love as Christ, so that submitting in everything is not at all abuse.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
No, I disagree. The suffering does not serve those purposes; their conduct in unavoidable suffering does.

But that is the point. We both agreed it was unavoidable suffering, and he gave the best advice he could for the situation, through inspiration.

I already noted we would both give different advice in our situation which IS different. And I noted that Peter is not opposed to fleeing if it would help.

But they couldn't flee there. There was no where to Go. So their suffering--if necessary--did have a purpose. And he said if they must suffer to glorify God, and they would be blessed.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
Neither Paul nor Peter said that women cannot have a stake in decision making, or input in decision making.

But in a one-sided submission model, they can only have the stake or input their husband allows. And if that's none, well, that's just how it is.

tall73 said:
And the whole point of Paul spelling out at length the type of sacrificial love that Christ leads with, and urging husbands to the same, is to show that husbands don't have to coerce to lead, and should serve as Christ.

But saying to women they must submit "in everything," is inherently coercive. Every single instruction, demand, wish or or mildest suggestion then carries the force of divine command behind it.

tall73 said:
I already mentioned no one is commanded to control in the text.

But telling wives that God expects one-sided submission from them is setting up a controlling dynamic. If she must submit, that means he is, by default, controlling.

tall73 said:
But if Christ can lead in servant leadership. and the text says for husbands to do the same, and for wives to submit to that, then we should live out that description of Christian love.

That's not a description of Christian love, from where I'm standing.

tall73 said:
And God is, as with everything, holy and just, and if He describes a husband loving as Christ loved the church, and wives submitting to that, then by definition it cannot be abuse.

But since we know that dynamics of control are abusive, then this must be a false understanding of God's will.

tall73 said:
But more importantly, the husband is to love as Christ, so that submitting in everything is not at all abuse.

I cannot agree. It doesn't matter how loving he is, if she is required to submit, and he is, therefore, in control, that is abuse.

Hazelelponi · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
Southern Baptists are the largest Baptist convention. The Southern Baptist Baptist Faith and Message 2000 states:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

The American Baptist Churches USA policy statement On Women and Men as Partners in Church and Society takes a different view. The document is rather long. Here is a key phrase related to the topic:

We affirm that the practice of partnership between women and men can be most effectively taught in the home with the church's active help. This means that the father and the mother should model mutual love and respect for the gifts and qualities that each brings to their marriage and the home they have established.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what Scripture says on the topic. Should wives submit to husbands? Should wives and husbands be equal partners?

The topic is NOT about whether women should be preachers, priests, elders, overseers, bishops, pastors, deacons, should teach, etc. That may be a topic for another thread for Baptists at some point. But this is looking at the relation between wives and husbands.

Submit to the authorities that God has placed over you.

For women this is a subordination to your husband's authority when she's married.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
But that is the point. We both agreed it was unavoidable suffering, and he gave the best advice he could for the situation, through inspiration.

I already noted we would both give different advice in our situation which IS different. And I noted that Peter is not opposed to fleeing if it would help.

But they couldn't flee there. There was no where to Go. So their suffering--if necessary--did have a purpose. And he said if they must suffer to glorify God, and they would be blessed.

But the point is that this is not a helpful text when we approach questions of abuse in marriage today. Encouraging women to stay and love their abusers because "the Bible says," is only compounding the abuse.

tall73 · May 20, 2024

tall73 said

Let's clarify, before moving on to the analogy. Do you voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ? If so, is that relationship abusive?

Paidiske said:

Yes, I voluntarily submit to the leading of Christ

Then voluntary submission to spiritual leadership is not abuse.

Paidiske said:

But a husband is not God.

tall73 said:

Very true! If it said submit to Christ as you submit to Christ, it would be redundant. But instead it says:

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

Nor does it say:

Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives and husbands submit to each other in everything

You say the following.

A one-sided relationship between two mentally competent human adults in which one is supposed to lead, and the other submit, over a lifetime, backed up with the claim that to ever deviate from that is to disobey God, is abusive.

But the text still says this:

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

I do not see your standard in the text. I do see that it says as the church submits to Christ, let wives be submissive to their husbands.

If your standard is not what God describes, and you accept the text as inspired, then you may need to revisit your standard.

Paidiske said:
I do not concede that "my standard" and the text are incompatible.

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)

I do not see your standard in the text. And I spelled out at length how submission to even governing authorities is called for, and it would violate your principle. But the Scriptures still call for it.

Paidiske said:
And what about when submitting in everything directly violates the wife's dignity and agency as a human being made in God's image? It may not be a direct command, but it's certainly violating a Scriptural vision for human flourishing in Christ.

If submitting to Christ does not violate one's dignity and agency, then submitting to the husband who is loving in the same fashion, being instructed to by Scripture, need not either.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
I do not see your standard in the text.

You are only looking at one verse, and not the whole Scriptural witness.

tall73 said:
If submitting to Christ does not violate one's dignity and agency, then submitting to the husband who is loving in the same fashion, being instructed to by Scripture, need not either.

I would argue that it does. A husband is not God; not omnipotent, not perfect, not the creator of the universe and the governor of everything that exists. He does not know every part of his wife's being and does not love her prefectly. A human being's relationship with God is completely different from a relationship with a fellow human being.

And submitting to husbands, in a one-sided way, even when he is loving, is inherently denying the wife her dignity and agency. It is denying her the full scope of her humanity, the full exercise of her gifts and wisdom. And it makes her vulnerable to every single time he is less than utterly perfect (which is pretty much always, because he's human).

tall73 · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:

But that is the point. We both agreed it was unavoidable suffering, and he gave the best advice he could for the situation, through inspiration.

I already noted we would both give different advice in our situation which IS different. And I noted that Peter is not opposed to fleeing if it would help.

But they couldn't flee there. There was no where to Go. So their suffering--if necessary--did have a purpose. And he said if they must suffer to glorify God, and they would be blessed.

Paidiske said:
But the point is that this is not a helpful text when we approach questions of abuse in marriage today.

Texts always need to be understood in their context. It was not written today, or for today's situation. But looking at the principles involved is very helpful for today, and recognizing the limitations they were under.

Paidiske said:
Encouraging women to stay and love their abusers because "the Bible says," is only compounding the abuse.

And since we both agreed the circumstances are not the same, and that neither of us give that advice when the circumstances allow for other options, we agree that would be compounding the problem.

Churches, governing authorities, etc. all have a legitimate role in rebuking, and in the case of governing authorities, restraining, abuse. And the texts in question do not sanction abuse at all.

But multiple texts, to multiple churches, through inspiration, refer to submission of wives to husbands. And they do not tie it to only one time period, but speak of holy women of old.

And they urge husbands who do learn from the text to follow the example of Christ in his headship.

Paidiske · May 20, 2024

tall73 said:
But multiple texts, to multiple churches, through inspiration, refer to submission of wives to husbands.

And put it in a broader context where this is not meant to be a relationship where he controls, and she obeys. But rather one of mutual love and service.

Baptists (and others)-- Wives submit to husbands? Wives and husbands equal partners?

Clara bonam audax

christian

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Student of Life

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Similar threads