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

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Tigran1245 said:
No, I mean that a man is allowed to have authority over his wife only within the framework of the commandments of Scripture and the natural Law of God.

Thus, controlling every aspect of a wife's life will not have a beneficial effect on her, but there will be negative effect. Accordingly, this cannot in any way correspond to the Natural Law. And, consequently, it contradicts. Therefore it is prohibited.

Thank you for clarifying.

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
I find the assumption that a marriage in which both spouses work together as equals, leads to conflict, to be very strange, and not at all in keeping with reality.

Why would them being equal guarantee they are working together?

When I described husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church, with delegated authority within the scope assigned, which is managing the family such that they follow the Lord's commands, you indicated the problem was that not all husbands are good.

And you have pointed out that some who claim to be complementarian Christians have abused--which is correct. Therefore, you say you will not accept any "no true Scotteman" fallacies when we spell out how our view works, that no "true" complementarian Christian would abuse.

You judge our view from not from the ideal, but the reality of abuse having happened.

But then when you speak of your view, you judge it by the ideal, not the reality of what happens.

Some couples consider men and women equal, but don't work together at all, and are in constant conflict.

The problem in both models are those who give reign to the sinful nature.

Paidiske · Jul 20, 2024

tall73 said:
Why would them being equal guarantee they are working together?

It doesn't guarantee it. But there's this idea repeated in several posts from different people that equality equals constant conflict. How did bella put it? "An endless battle of oneupmanship." It's just nonsense.

tall73 said:
When I described husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church, with delegated authority within the scope assigned, which is managing the family such that they follow the Lord's commands, you indicated the problem was that not all husbands are good.

That is one problem; it's certainly not the only problem. Nor is the sinful nature the only problem.

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Tigran1245 said:
The husband can use physical violence in exceptional cases when, for example, the wife does not control herself and threatens the health of herself and others. In other cases, the husband cannot inflict physical violence, because as you rightly said, it destroys families.

And what has a negative effect does not correspond to the natural Law of God. Conclusively, it is not allowed.

Thank you, I think all the parties who have weighed in on the topic so far have indicated that physical intervention may be necessary in exceptional cases, to restrain the wife from harming others.

@ValeriyK2022 I think also touched on the idea of physically restraining when the wife wants to harm herself.

And I think @Paidiske and I have agreed that a wife also may use physical intervention to protect children, etc. in the same way, even if it means going against the authority of the husband, or involving civil authorities.

So the consensus seems to be that physical intervention is ruled out, except in cases where someone is harming others.

Paidiske · Jul 20, 2024

tall73 said:
Thank you, I think all the parties who have weighed in on the topic so far have indicated that physical intervention may be necessary in exceptional cases, to restrain the wife from harming others.
...

So the consensus seems to be that physical intervention is ruled out, except in cases where someone is harming others.

That's a start, but it's not really adequate, though. @Tigran1245 spoke of a God-given right for a man to control his wife. He might rule out doing so by physical force, but that really doesn't make his position safe, or non-abusive.

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
It doesn't guarantee it. But there's this idea repeated in several posts from different people that equality equals constant conflict. How did bella put it? "An endless battle of oneupmanship." It's just nonsense.

It doesn't guarantee it because no system can guarantee it. But the question was why you are looking at your system from the vantage point of the ideal, but our system from the vantage point of the clear violations of the ideal?

Nor is the sinful nature the only problem.

If two people are living in the Spirit, bearing its fruit, at that moment, they are not abusing. If they are living out the works of the flesh, they are abusing, themselves, or each other, or those around them, or all the above.

And even from a secular perspective, the various studies note abuse involves a variety of factors. Which is why the statement from your book review indicating that all abuse stems from male privelege and entitlement does not follow. You have acknowledged that some egalitarians abuse as well.

The following is from the US CDC website, listing factors, and linking to associated research. Since you have said we should learn from secular research, you should not reduce the factors identified by research to one. That is not accurate.

Risk and Protective Factors

This page outlines risk and protective factors for experiencing or perpetrating intimate partner vio

www.cdc.gov

Intimate partner violence is not caused by a single factor. Instead, a combination of factors at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels can increase or decrease the risk of violence.

Individual risk factors

Low self-esteem.1
Low education or income.2
Young age.2 3
Aggressive or delinquent behavior as a youth.3
Heavy alcohol and drug use.2 3
Depression and suicide attempts.2 3
Anger and hostility.2 3
Lack of nonviolent social problem-solving skills.4
Antisocial personality traits and conduct problems.3
Poor behavioral control and impulsiveness.5
Traits associated with borderline personality disorder.1
History of being physically abusive.2 3
Having few friends and being isolated from other people.1
Economic stress (e.g., unemployment).2 6
Emotional dependence and insecurity.1
Belief in strict gender roles (e.g., male dominance and aggression in relationships).2 3
Desire for power and control in relationships.7
Hostility towards women.1
Attitudes accepting or justifying violence and aggression.2 3
History of physical or emotional abuse in childhood.1 2 3

Relationship risk factors

Relationship conflicts including jealousy, possessiveness, tension, divorce, or separations.1 3 8
Dominance and control of the relationship by one partner over the other.6
Families experiencing economic stress.1
Unhealthy family relationships and interactions.3
Association with antisocial and aggressive peers.1 3
Parents with less than a high school education.9
Witnessing violence between parents as a child.1 3
History of experiencing poor parenting as a child.1 3
History of experiencing physical discipline as a child.3

Community risk factors

Communities with high rates of poverty and limited educational and economic opportunities.1
Communities with high unemployment rates.1
Communities with high rates of violence and crime.1
Communities where neighbors don't know or look out for each other and there is low community involvement among residents.1
Communities with easy access to drugs and alcohol.10
Weak community sanctions against intimate partner violence (e.g., unwillingness of neighbors to intervene in situations where they witness violence).1

Societal risk factors

Traditional gender norms and gender inequality (e.g., the idea women should stay at home, not enter the workforce, and be submissive; men should support the family and make the decisions).6 11
Cultural norms that support aggression toward others.11
Societal income inequality.12
Weak health, educational, economic, and social policies or laws.11

Relationship protective factors

Strong social support networks and stable, positive relationships with others.1

Community protective factors

Neighborhood collective efficacy, meaning residents feel connected to each other and are involved in the community.1
Coordination of resources and services among community agencies.13 14
Communities with access to safe, stable housing.15 16
Communities with access to medical care and mental health services.17
Communities with access to economic and financial help.6 18 19

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
That's a start, but it's not really adequate, though. @Tigran1245 spoke of a God-given right for a man to control his wife. He might rule out doing so by physical force, but that really doesn't make his position safe, or non-abusive.

He also clarified the scope of authority narrowly, when asked.

We still have not clarified whether he sees the husband's role as primarily persuasive or coercive. But he has ruled out physical means to induce obedience, other than extreme situations of harming others.

Tigran1245 · Jul 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
And where, there, do you see any instruction or permission for a husband to coerce or control his wife?

Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels(1Cor.11:8-10).

The authority here is the word ἐξουσία.

This word literally means power. Thus, the New Testament uses the same word when it says that Christ forgives sins:

But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mat.9:6)

Here is the same word ἐξουσία.

So, if you deny the power of a husband over his wife (and power in any case is a certain control), then you should also deny the power of Christ to forgive sins.

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Tigran1245 said:
In other cases, the husband cannot inflict physical violence, because as you rightly said, it destroys families.

And what has a negative effect does not correspond to the natural Law of God. Conclusively, it is not allowed.

What do you see the means of the husband being, in exercising authority outside of these exceptional cases?

Would you agree with Chrysostom, quoted earlier, who references:

Showing love, good temper, exhorting, persuading her with arguments, attentively studying the Scriptures, instructing her in true riches, in the heavenly philosophy, etc. And not chain down with fear and menaces, not dwell with his wife as a slave, not upbraid her, not give expression to insults or taunts or revilings?

Tigran1245 · Jul 20, 2024

tall73 said:
What do you see the means of the husband being, in exercising authority outside of these exceptional cases?

In other cases, only verbal persuasion and an appeal to the wife is sufficient.

tall73 said:
Showing love, good temper, exhorting, persuading her with arguments, attentively studying the Scriptures, instructing her in true riches, in the heavenly philosophy, etc. And not chain down with fear and menaces, not dwell with his wife as a slave, not upbraid her, not give expression to insults or taunts or revilings?

Yes, I certainly agree with this.

BNR32FAN · Jul 20, 2024

tall73 said:
My view currently is that texts like I Peter 3 seem pretty straight-forward, and do indicate wives submit to husbands. Though it also warns husbands to treat wives honorably.

There appears to be no situation unique to a given area, because he addresses churches in various Roman provinces:

1 Peter 1:1 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

He ties it to holy women of the past, taking it beyond the local situation:

1 Peter 3:5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands

He references a specific OT passage for support:

1 Peter 3:6 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Genesis 18:12 . 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” (NKJV)

Peter references cautions to men against treating wives poorly, and assures that women are co-heirs of salvation:

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Peter was married, as we see reference to his mother-in-law, and Paul's statement about him having a believing wife. So while some have at times indicated Paul's view may be shaped by his unmarried state, the same would not be true of Peter.

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.

1 Corinthians 9:5 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

The passage shows continuity between the behavior of holy women of old, and those in the New Testament era, in a variety of locations.

In its cautions regarding treatment of wives it also parallels Ephesians 5.

In its relating that wives are co-heirs of the grace of life it parallels Galatians 3, where there is no male or female in Christ in regards to being heirs of the promise.

Perhaps Ephesians 5:22 was written according to the time period. Would you say that Ephesians 6:5 would also apply to us in a modern society?

“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Tigran1245 · Jul 20, 2024

tall73 said:
We still have not clarified whether he sees the husband's role as primarily persuasive or coercive. But he has ruled out physical means to induce obedience, other than extreme situations of harming others.

I would not limit exceptional situations to harming others. Things happen in life. On this issue, the point of view of Catholic theology is closest to me.

"Can I not chastise my wife when she is guilty of misconduct?"
Yes; if there is a just cause (particularly if your wife fails in chastity), and if, after being corrected several times, she does not amend, you can chastise her, but with moderation. But it is not lawful to beat your wife for trifling defects, such as for saying a word in anger, or for disobedience in a matter of little importance."
(de Liguori, Saint Alphonsus. The Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Collection [30 Books]. Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.)

There are two kinds of community. One is the domestic, like a family, and another is the political, like a city or kingdom. Therefore, the man who rules the second kind of community, such as a king or judge, can inflict a penalty both in order to correct a person and to expel for the purification of the community that he cares for. But that man who rules in the first kind of community, like the father of a family, can only inflict corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond the boundaries of reform, whereas the death penalty does cross these limits. And therefore, a husband, who is set over his wife in this way, cannot kill her, but only chastise her in other ways.
(St. Thomas Aquinas Aquinas)

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
That's still a massive problem.

And where, there, do you see any instruction or permission for a husband to coerce or control his wife?

I find the assumption that a marriage in which both spouses work together as equals, leads to conflict, to be very strange, and not at all in keeping with reality.

BNR32FAN said:
Perhaps Ephesians 5:22 was written according to the time period. Would you say that Ephesians 6:5 would also apply to us in a modern society?

“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This was addressed previously in the thread, but here is the short version.

The husband being head is described in theological arguments in I Corinthians 11, and Ephesians 5. Particularly in the latter case, it is based on a simile comparing the relationship of the husband to the wife, to that of Christ and the church.

Submission is said to also be more than just culturally applicable to Rome as I Peter describes that holy women of old also did this. Submission to husbands is described as fitting in the Lord in Colossians 3. And the various indications of headship in the pre-fall and fall accounts were also examined, including the commentary on such in the NT (Eve made for Adam, etc.)

On the other hand, slavery was argued against by Paul in I Corinthians 7, where he said we should not be slaves of men,and if you can buy your freedom do so. If not, don't let it trouble you. And he argued for Philemon to release Onesimus so that he would no longer be a slave, but a valued brother and fellow-worker.

So no, the two are not seen the same way, as one is argued for theologically, and appeal is made to creation, and to holy women of old, and especially to the Headship of Christ and the church. And the other is argued against, and those who are in slavery are advised to buy their freedom if possible.

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Tigran1245 said:
I would not limit exceptional situations to harming others. Things happen in life. On this issue, the point of view of Catholic theology is closest to me.

"Can I not chastise my wife when she is guilty of misconduct?"
Yes; if there is a just cause (particularly if your wife fails in chastity), and if, after being corrected several times, she does not amend, you can chastise her, but with moderation. But it is not lawful to beat your wife for trifling defects, such as for saying a word in anger, or for disobedience in a matter of little importance."
(de Liguori, Saint Alphonsus. The Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Collection [30 Books]. Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.)

There are two kinds of community. One is the domestic, like a family, and another is the political, like a city or kingdom. Therefore, the man who rules the second kind of community, such as a king or judge, can inflict a penalty both in order to correct a person and to expel for the purification of the community that he cares for. But that man who rules in the first kind of community, like the father of a family, can only inflict corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond the boundaries of reform, whereas the death penalty does cross these limits. And therefore, a husband, who is set over his wife in this way, cannot kill her, but only chastise her in other ways.
(St. Thomas Aquinas Aquinas)

There is certainly no Scripture saying to beat your wife, and Ephesias indicates just the opposite. Jesus doesn't beat His church.

Ephesians 5:25-29 5 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (NKJV)

And commenting on the passage, Chrystom did not hold to your view.

Neither, however, let the husband, when he hears these things, on the score of his having the supreme authority, betake himself to revilings and to blows; but let him exhort, let him admonish her, as being less perfect, let him persuade her with arguments. Let him never once lift his hand — far be this from a noble spirit, — no, nor give expression to insults, or taunts, or revilings; but let him regulate and direct her as being wanting in wisdom.

Nor does quoting Catholics from the 13th and 17th century demonstrate this is Catholic theology. And statements by bishops and the pope have been issued against such violence.

If you are beating your wife you should certainly repent.

BNR32FAN · Jul 20, 2024

tall73 said:
This was addressed previously in the thread, but here is the short version.

The husband being head is described in theological arguments in I Corinthians 11, and Ephesians 5. Particularly in the latter case, it is based on a simile comparing the relationship of the husband to the wife, to that of Christ and the church.

Submission is said to also be more than just culturally applicable to Rome as I Peter describes that holy women of old also did this. Submission to husbands is described as fitting in the Lord in Colossians 3. And the various indications of headship in the pre-fall and fall accounts were also examined, including the commentary on such in the NT (Eve made for Adam, etc.)

On the other hand, slavery was argued against by Paul in I Corinthians 7, where he said we should not be slaves of men,and if you can buy your freedom do so. If not, don't let it trouble you. And he argued for Philemon to release Onesimus so that he would no longer be a slave, but a valued brother and fellow-worker.

So no, the two are not seen the same way, as one is argued for theologically, and appeal is made to creation, and to holy women of old, and especially to the Headship of Christ and the church. And the other is argued against, and those who are in slavery are advised to buy their freedom if possible.

To me I just see it fitting with the time period and how society at that time operated. I don’t see any evidence in the passage that indicates that it is intended to be metaphorical or allegorical.

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
To me I just see it fitting with the time period and how society at that time operated. I don’t see any evidence in the passage that indicates that it is intended to be metaphorical or allegorical.

Which part, the relations of husband and wife, or the portion regarding slavery?

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

BNR32FAN said:
To me I just see it fitting with the time period and how society at that time operated. I don’t see any evidence in the passage that indicates that it is intended to be metaphorical or allegorical.

This statement compares the relation of husband and wife, to that of Christ and the church.

Ephesians 5:23 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.

The call for the husband to be head, and the wife to submit, is not based on Roman culture, but argued for in comparison to Christ and the Church.

Likewise, Peter says such a gentle and quiet spirit is precious in the sight of God, not just the Romans.

1 Peter 3:3-6 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 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)

Paidiske · Jul 20, 2024

tall73 said:
But the question was why you are looking at your system from the vantage point of the ideal, but our system from the vantage point of the clear violations of the ideal?

I don't agree that I am doing so.

tall73 said:
And even from a secular perspective, the various studies note abuse involves a variety of factors.

Generally speaking, while it is true that other factors influence the incidences and severity of abuse, if someone does not hold the attitudes which drive male domestic violence against women, he does not abuse, even if those other factors are present.

Someone who has low self-esteem, low education (etc) but does not believe he has a right to control his wife, is not going to engage in controlling behaviour; his issues will be expressed in other (quite possibly dysfunctional) ways.

tall73 said:
He also clarified the scope of authority narrowly, when asked.

We still have not clarified whether he sees the husband's role as primarily persuasive or coercive. But he has ruled out physical means to induce obedience, other than extreme situations of harming others.

But he still argues for a man's right to control his wife. That, in itself, is not okay.

Tigran1245 said:
The authority here is the word ἐξουσία.

This word literally means power. Thus, the New Testament uses the same word when it says that Christ forgives sins:

But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins (Mat.9:6)

Here is the same word ἐξουσία.

So, if you deny the power of a husband over his wife (and power in any case is a certain control), then you should also deny the power of Christ to forgive sins.

I would argue that the word has a bigger semantic range than just "power," and that when talking about how humans are to relate to one another, it is not talking about a relationship of control.

Tigran1245 said:
In other cases, only verbal persuasion and an appeal to the wife is sufficient.

And if she is not persuaded? She is free to disagree?

Tigran1245 said:
I would not limit exceptional situations to harming others. Things happen in life. On this issue, the point of view of Catholic theology is closest to me.

"Can I not chastise my wife when she is guilty of misconduct?"
Yes; if there is a just cause (particularly if your wife fails in chastity), and if, after being corrected several times, she does not amend, you can chastise her, but with moderation. But it is not lawful to beat your wife for trifling defects, such as for saying a word in anger, or for disobedience in a matter of little importance."
(de Liguori, Saint Alphonsus. The Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Collection [30 Books]. Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.)

There are two kinds of community. One is the domestic, like a family, and another is the political, like a city or kingdom. Therefore, the man who rules the second kind of community, such as a king or judge, can inflict a penalty both in order to correct a person and to expel for the purification of the community that he cares for. But that man who rules in the first kind of community, like the father of a family, can only inflict corrective punishment, which does not extend beyond the boundaries of reform, whereas the death penalty does cross these limits. And therefore, a husband, who is set over his wife in this way, cannot kill her, but only chastise her in other ways.
(St. Thomas Aquinas Aquinas)

Absolutely horrifying.

bèlla · Jul 20, 2024

The answer isn't complicated and reflects my initial response on the subject. It is each person's responsibility to select a companion whose philosophy complements their own. Errors in judgment don't nullify the truth.

If equality is the goal then find one who agrees. But don't expect others to follow suit. They may prefer a different iteration and that's their right. Submission is offensive to some and welcomed by others.

If we altered our perspective on every issue where missteps occurred we'd never stop contorting. Failures for one doesn't predict the same for others. An abusive spouse doesn't alter our position on marriage. We don't stop marrying because they erred. You learn from their mistakes and move forward.

~bella

tall73 · Jul 20, 2024

Paidiske said:
Generally speaking, while it is true that other factors influence the incidences and severity of abuse, if someone does not hold the attitudes which drive male domestic violence against women, he does not abuse, even if those other factors are present.

Then how do you explain egalitarians abuse? In the study I posted earlier, based on data from 11 nations, including a large sample from the US, there was no statistically significant difference between the rate of IPV between egalitarian and patriarchal highly religious couples. There was a slight statistically significant difference between patriarchal and egalitarian shared secular couples. But that still leaves many abusers with egalitarian views. So if abuse can only happen if someone has patriarchal views, then how do you account for this?

They used measures based on the WHO defiinition, asking about physical harm, threats, forced sex, and monetary control

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

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Armenian Apostolic Church

Sophia7's husband

Armenian Apostolic Church

He’s a Way of life

Armenian Apostolic Church

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

He’s a Way of life

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Clara bonam audax

❤️

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads