It appears to me that you may have some nuances in your definition of the word that I am not aware of.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Headship: Interpretation & Practice
- Thread starter smilingjack
- Start date
When your focus is dominance and submission then like Vladimir Putin you will need to make a practice of keeping your distance from everyone because everyone will have a reason to put an end to you.
Better to be a good man and to be able to sleep well at night with your bedroom door unlocked.
Yes. The man’s headship over the woman is a direct corollary for the relationship of the church and Christ. It requires total submission in all things. There’s no similar obligation put on children. If we extend headship to children then we’re either over-obligating children or minimizing a wife’s submission to her husband or possibly even both.
Great. Then if I was married to Christ I'd totally submit to Him.
Now fulfill your obligation to be to your wife like Christ was to the church and your wife's total submission will not be a topic of discussion, it will simply be.
This is where I have difficulties with this topic. Men who demand the total submission of their wives are similar to men who demand the right to win a Super Bowl or a World Cup.
You don't just get to win a Super Bowl or World Cup because you happen to be a man.
It requires a massive amount of personal sacrifice and personal discipline to achieve such a thing.
Likewise, expecting your wife/wives/women to totally submit to you when you haven't done anything to deserve it is irrational.
However, if you as a man were to behave towards your wife/wives/women as Christ behaved towards the church then you would not need to mention the total submission of your ladies because they'd do so as a matter of course.
You guys sometimes don't get it about us, we want you to be the kind of man we can submit to in all things.
Be that man.
And this is where we have to disagree. Total submission is not earned. It is required. It was required by our Creator God and without caveats.
A Christian woman agrees to it when she agrees to marry a man.
I’m a little shocked at your intellectual lapse here. You know full well that the kind of submission due Christ can never be earned. It would require the perfection of Christ.
What you’re saying when you tell us to earn it is, “Women shouldn’t have to do it.”
Well I can’t earn it. I’m not capable. But my wife is still obligated to give it to me.
I didn’t make the rules, I just profit off of them.
How do you reconcile this very conditional submission with 1 Peter 3?
Something to consider, replace everything you just said about submission/respect and instead discuss the husbands command to love his wife as Christ loves the church.
Is a husband expecting his wife to be the godly woman she is called to be first, in order to earn the love he's commanded to give unconditionally, in alignment with scripture?
You're not wrong in that a good godly man makes submission easier and more natural from a good godly woman. But the same can be said for loving a good godly woman like Christ loves the church, it's a lot easier with a good submissive wife than a rebellious one, but the commands for both are not conditional as far as I can tell...
The obligations of both are parallel, not earned by the other doing their part.
A wife is obliged to submit - even if her husband is unworthy.
A husband is obliged to self-sacrificially protect and love his wife - even if she is unworthy.
Both will fail in their obligations from time, i.e. both will sin, because both are human. That does not change the obligations on either.
Having said that, I do agree with @MeganC that if a man has to tell you he's a man, he's not a man. I agree with a lot of what she has said about manliness. I just disagree that the woman can ignore her obligations just because her man fails at his - just as I would disagree with a man refusing to love his wife because she refused to submit to him. On the contrary, a woman married to an unbelieving husband is specifically instructed to submit to him in the hope that her submission will improve him.
We do not earn these things. They are given despite the fact that we are all unworthy. And that parallels how salvation works also.
A wife is obliged to submit - even if her husband is unworthy.
A husband is obliged to self-sacrificially protect and love his wife - even if she is unworthy.
Both will fail in their obligations from time, i.e. both will sin, because both are human. That does not change the obligations on either.
Having said that, I do agree with @MeganC that if a man has to tell you he's a man, he's not a man. I agree with a lot of what she has said about manliness. I just disagree that the woman can ignore her obligations just because her man fails at his - just as I would disagree with a man refusing to love his wife because she refused to submit to him. On the contrary, a woman married to an unbelieving husband is specifically instructed to submit to him in the hope that her submission will improve him.
We do not earn these things. They are given despite the fact that we are all unworthy. And that parallels how salvation works also.
My comment has nothing with Putin or Russia. Neither of both is example for me or part of my ideal society.
Leader/follower is another good pair of words.
I just prefer dominance/submission becausec it can imply emotional connection and ownership.
Our understanding of headship and the marital relationship is inextricably tied to our understanding of the Gospel and our relationship to Christ. Hence Paul's mystery.
Most people get the Gospel wrong so it's no surprise they go off the rails on marriage.