Wives should submit to their husbands????

[Emily25069]

"I don't think it's appropriate to compare children with a spouse. Children should do what they're told by their parents. Wives are not under that same requirement of the hubby. "


why exactly?


you know that there is a whole movement reguarding children as you see wives. They dont think that the children should have to obey. Its in scripture, sure...but "thats not what that scripture is actually saying", they say (they ..it sounds familiar to the conversation i am having with you actually.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
It is non-sensical to say that we must submit except when we decide not to.

Disagree. Submission must be all the time. Compliance is not required all the time.</font>[/QUOTE] At what point would a person be said to be in submission to Christ but not in compliance with his commands? At what point would a person be in submission to civil government but not in compliance with the law?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Submit" explicitly includes the notion that another has a right to make an authoritative decision or devise a standard.

No, submission means one has the responsibility to in good faith represent the interests of the submitter.</font>[/QUOTE] False dichotomy. What you said is the partial answer. If the one submitted to has no authority then submission is a meaningless concept.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't consider my children "obedient" when they only comply with the letter of what I tell them. I also don't consider them obedient if they do it with a bad spirit.

I don't think it's appropriate to compare children with a spouse.</font>[/QUOTE] I'm not. I am answering your assertion about the meaning of obedience. Although the term obedience may apply to a wife as well in certain situations.

Children should do what they're told by their parents.

I don't want my children to simply do what I tell them. I want them to follow my leadership and make obedient decisions consistent with what I teach them.

Wives are not under that same requirement of the hubby.

The wife is required to submit to the leadership of her husband. As a part of that leadership, the husband will be required to make decisions and set standards. If the wife refuses to obey and abide then she is not in submission.

My wife and I almost always agree after discussing issues. I change my perspective at least as often as she does. My wife is an intelligent person who quite often has a mastery of the details that I lack.

However, not only does she expect me to make a final decision when we can't come to an agreement, she depends on me to exhibit that type of leadership. She recognizes that it makes me rightly responsible before God while attempts by her to usurp my final authority would leave her guilty before God even if the correct decision were made.

 

[Bunyon]

Another example: Wife's car dies. Wife wants to buy a blue car (it's her favorite color) and the hubby wants her to buy a red car (it's his favorite color). The wife is buying it with her own funds from her own job, and the hubby never drives her car. Is the wife sinning if she buys a blue car? No. It does not fall under his headship authority. OTOH, one could make the arguement that the hubby would be guilty of the sin of pride by insisting on a red car, so you may have a point here.

"Another example: The wife is overqeight, and the hubby wants the wife to get breast reduction surgery, or her stomach stapled. Must she comply? Of course not. The hubby wants her to dyer her hair blonde. Must she comply? No. The hubby forbids her to shave her armpits. The hubby forbids her from eating red apples. The hubby forbids her from using feminine napkins."---------------------------------------------------

Johnv, no one is saying that the wife had to be a slave. But submitting involves obeying at times, even if it in not an absolute as you are postulating here. The wife does not have to obey if the husband is clearly acting crazy or foolish. But if the husband is clearly acting within the bounds of his authority and in a reasonable manner, than is is incumbant upon the wife to obey. Submiting means their are times when you will be obeying. Endevering to obey a husband who may be wrong in good faith is not tantamout to what you are saying above.

This is common sense. Even in the Army, I was not expected to obey crazy or unreasonable commands. And I was not required to obey anything that the leader clearly did not have authority to command. But it it was reasonable and within his authority, I was expected to submit to his authority.

 

[Scott J]

Emily made me think of something else.

A wife's submission/obedience should actually be very similar to where we want to lead our children to in obedience/submission.

In the brown boot army, we used to use a concept called "crawl, walk, run". Crawl means that the Drill Sgt tells the soldier everything to do and exactly how it must be done without deviation. Walk means that the DS tells the soldier what to do but not how to do it. Run means that DS sets the agenda and direction with the full expectation that the soldier will follow.

The DS never loses responsibility for the soldier. The DS's mission in life is to make a good soldier. He sacrifices himself. He doesn't sleep. He ignores his personal desires and often needs.

Most people never see this side of a DS. Most think of them as ogres. They aren't. DS's care for their troops and are completely dedicated to the mission.

Husband's should love their wives that way. The wife's sanctification and welfare should be the mission of the husband... above himself... and as part of that, God has given him decision making authority within the marriage and family.

 

[Scott J]

John, You are making issues over non-issues. You want to obscure the black and white by listing as many gray issues as you can.

People will always have to exercise honest judgment when trying to determine how to submit to God. That includes wives.

But the example given by the lady earlier is clear. The husband should have a say and authority over whether the wife works outside the home or not. The husband should have a say over whether the wife goes on a business trip with a man. He should have a say on whether she and a male co-worker routinely go out together for lunch or dinner alone. There are numerous examples where his leadership directly manifests itself in his making decisions and establishing standards.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Johnv, no one is saying that the wife had to be a slave. But submitting involves obeying at times...

Now there, I agree with you completely.

The wife does not have to obey if the husband is clearly acting crazy or foolish. But if the husband is clearly acting within the bounds of his authority and in a reasonable manner, than is is incumbant upon the wife to obey.

Upon further consideration, perhaps we should have a discussion on what constitutes crazy, foolish, etc. Obviously, to you and me, a hubby telling his wife she must dye her hair blonde is foolish, and no compliance is warranted. But some will say "no, it's still not a sin, so she must do it". Know what I mean.

... I was not required to obey anything that the leader clearly did not have authority to command.

Another good point. Again perhaps a discussion on what constitutes scriptural authority might be warranted. You and I are like in agreement that a hubby telling his wife to dye her hair blonde is not covered under his authority, but someone else might.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
At what point would a person be said to be in submission to Christ but not in compliance with his commands?

Christ is sinless and perfect. The hubby is not. We have full assurance that if Christ asks something of us, we can do it. Not so with the hubby. It's reasonable for a spouse (whether it's the hubby or not) to consider if a spouse's request is reasonable before following suit. Of course, in those times when the hubby is acting in a state of sinless perfection, then your point is valid.

At what point would a person be in submission to civil government but not in compliance with the law?

I'm thinking of Rosa Parks..... Didn't comply, and it wasn't a sin. Yet she still submitted.

If the one submitted to has no authority then submission is a meaningless concept.

No one questions the existence of headship authority.

I'm not. I am answering your assertion about the meaning of obedience.

If you tell your kids to do something, they must do it, whether they like it or not, even if it's crazy, stupid, unreasonable, or ridiculous. Not so with the spouse. That is so until they're 18.

Wives are not under that same requirement of the hubby.

If the wife refuses to obey and abide then she is not in submission.

Not so. If the wife refuses to submit, then she is not in submission. Submission does not require blind comliance. If you have to ask "what's the difference" I simply don't know what to tell you.

However, not only does she expect me to make a final decision when we can't come to an agreement, she depends on me to exhibit that type of leadership.

Now the question is, if you DON'T demonstrate that leadership, or abuse it, etc, then is she still required to comply with your decision? If you're not acting in headship, then it can be rightly argued that she would not be violating the call of submission.

I remember last year someone saying the he instructed his wife on how to vote, and that if his wife didn't vote as he instructed, then she's violating the role of submission (of course, that person never acknowleged that he was abusing the role of headship).

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
At what point would a person be said to be in submission to Christ but not in compliance with his commands?

Christ is sinless and perfect. The hubby is not.</font>[/QUOTE] A fact already covered in my statement. I specifically cited cases where the husband either asks the wife to sin or else is sinning in what he asks of her as instances where she should obey God rather than man.

Of course, in those times when the hubby is acting in a state of sinless perfection, then your point is valid.

No. In the cases where is acting within the scope of his God given authority and responsibility.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />At what point would a person be in submission to civil government but not in compliance with the law?

I'm thinking of Rosa Parks..... Didn't comply, and it wasn't a sin. Yet she still submitted.</font>[/QUOTE] No. She didn't submit. She determined that doing the right thing meant that she had to submit to a higher authority than the statutes of Alabama.

She was not in submission to the state and legitimately so.

If I told my wife that I wanted her to seduce my boss so that I could blackmail him, her only right answer would be to refuse. Not submit.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If the one submitted to has no authority then submission is a meaningless concept.

No one questions the existence of headship authority.</font>[/QUOTE] You did and so did Scarlett. You specifically balk at the concept that the man's headship and leadership responsibilities come with any form of authority or expectation that the wife should comply with he says.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm not. I am answering your assertion about the meaning of obedience.

If you tell your kids to do something, they must do it, whether they like it or not, even if it's crazy, stupid, unreasonable, or ridiculous. Not so with the spouse. That is so until they're 18.</font>[/QUOTE] I hopefully am not raising my kids this way. If you try to turn the switch at 18 then those kids who haven't had a chance to flap their wings will fail.

Wives are not under that same requirement of the hubby.

As adults, they are not subject to the same kind of directives as an 8 year old nor the same kind of corporeal punishments.

However, they are responsible before God to submit to their husband and that includes the fact that leadership always involves decision making authority.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If the wife refuses to obey and abide then she is not in submission.

Not so. If the wife refuses to submit, then she is not in submission. Submission does not require blind comliance. If you have to ask "what's the difference" I simply don't know what to tell you.</font>[/QUOTE] I told you what the difference is and I find it a little annoying that you use the term "blind compliance" after I have specifically stated that the wife must always use judgment to determine whether her submission to her husband causes her to not be in submission to God.

God made the man responsible for his wife and family. He is to love and cherish her above all other human beings. He is commanded to lead, provide for, and protect her. He also gave him authority over her. There is no excuse for him to abuse that authority. His use of it should be governed by his love and care for her. At the same time, that authority exists and if the wife rebels against it then she is in sin.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />However, not only does she expect me to make a final decision when we can't come to an agreement, she depends on me to exhibit that type of leadership.

Now the question is, if you DON'T demonstrate that leadership, or abuse it, etc, then is she still required to comply with your decision?</font>[/QUOTE] That is not so subjective as you suggest. If it is purely a matter of judgment then yes she should submit to my final decision. She recognizes that she has done what she can and that God will hold me responsible... unless she tries to bully me into doing what she wants.

I remember last year someone saying the he instructed his wife on how to vote, and that if his wife didn't vote as he instructed, then she's violating the role of submission (of course, that person never acknowleged that he was abusing the role of headship).

My wife votes like me because she respects my leadership and knows that I love her. We agree on values and that we should do the best we can to vote those values.

So... I really can't comment on what would happen if I had a wife who wanted to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I would say that such a vote certainly falls under the spiritual headship role of the husband but exactly what you would do with a wife in that type of rebellion against not only the husband but God- I don't know.

 

[Bunyon]

If my wife were going to vote for an Abortion demegog, I would tell her she coldn't. But if she decided to defy me, I guess I would never know. But we are always on the same page when it comes to candidates and I hope most spouses are compatible enough that they never argue over candidates.