“Wives submit to your husbands”

[Anonymous]

Wives and husbands should respect each other's roles, strengths, and needs. This was (and sometimes still is) lived out in a different way historically and culturally. At the time this was written, a husband‘s role and strength was to be the head of household and provider. It seems only logical that a wife would be expected to “submit” to or respect his leadership. In contemporary society, wives now have much of that role and strength. The actual scripture words may remain the same, but the sentiment follows the current situation. If one spouse holds some household leadership and strength in a particular way, the other spouse is called to submit to that. The roles may be reversed in another area of household management. More kudos if the spouses can share the leadership and share the submission too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As some others have pointed out, the rest of the verse says in no uncertain terms that husbands are supposed to serve their wives. A lot of non-Christians who criticize these verses don’t read the whole passage and do not appreciate what Paul is actually saying.

Also, one of the reasons that Christianity grew so much after the death of Christ was its appeal to women. It’s really important to keep in mind the cultural context of the Greco-Roman world, which was nothing at all like we have today. Women basically had zero legal rights and it was assumed that men could and should cheat on their wives and there was nothing that the woman could *really* do about it. Even if she could technically get a divorce, she couldn’t get a job. Men had all of the power and acted accordingly. Also, infanticide was very common back then especially for female babies and that was particularly heartbreaking for mothers.

Christians came along and said the complete opposite on all of these fronts — men and women are completely equal before Christ; that men should not cheat on their wives; that excessive lust is wrong; that female infanticide was wrong; that it is OK if women do not want to get married at all; and when women become widows it was the responsibility of the church to take care of them and provide for them — previously widows were not cared for at all and usually just left to wither away.

My point is this — we can fixate on this one line from Paul that is being taken out of context to argue that Christians are “anti-women” or you can look at the entire context of what was happening at the time and why Christianity was RADICALLY different — and why it was so appealing to women back then and for many women today as well.

Yes, but pastors use this to preach that women should submit to their husbands. They don't care about the rest of the verse or the larger context if Christianity. Today's Christianity is not good for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The world absolutely runs better when women are submissive

This is a kink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went to wedding this weekend where the main reading was “wives submit to your husbands”.

I fear for that bride.

In other news, non-Christians don't understand Christian marriage.

NP

I understand it. I just don't agree with it.

It’s not like your view is valid.

LOL

I've been successfully married for 33 years. I'm a church goer. My opinion is pretty valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a Catholic wedding to make some older people in my life happy. I didn't take any of the religious stuff to heart (I'm an agnostic), and maybe this couple didn't either.

I went to a wedding like this and I know they don't even practice any religion. The ceremony was for her parents, with their pastor who used this verse and went on about it. It was held at a hotel. The pastor's presence was for her parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Here is the whole verse:

Ephesians 5:22-33 NKJV. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

PP, that's not the whole verse. You skipped 5:21: Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Followed by 5:31 "the two shall become one flesh." You skipped the parallel discussion directed to husband's too.

The whole thing is a call to cling to each other as we should cling to God, as God clings to us. It's wrapped in a parallel discussion of Christian's relationship with the Church and God. It is not about female servitude, in fact the mutuality in 5:21 is an intentional departure from the hierarchy observed in old testament writings, which would have been obvious and stark when written.

But, I get how odd the text probably sounds to unstudied ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a Catholic wedding to make some older people in my life happy. I didn't take any of the religious stuff to heart (I'm an agnostic), and maybe this couple didn't either.

Or maybe the actually understood the passage after learning about it in pre-marriage counseling and choosing that passage themselves (you do get choices in what is read, btw), and they know it doesn't mean what worried people on here seem to think it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

But if the husband is the spiritual leader, he is commanded to put his wife's needs above his own. So, she turns out just fine.

Let's be honest... too many husbands don't do that, but many are quick to point out the first half of the verse of "wives submit to your husbands".

-Christian

[Anonymous]

It sounds like the church I grew up in - LDS. It's the reason I left. I wish it would change as the church gave me a mostly lovely childhood, and I wish I could give some of that to my kids, but I can't do it anymore. How can I run a successful business and sit on boards, but at church, my role is to submit? I also have a daughter to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians clearly states that. Paul is not Jesus, obviously, so unless you’re a bible literalist (very few remaining), Paul’s pastoral letters aren’t relevant on this point. Also Paul allowed women to preach in church, so there’s that.

First the PP is wrong that this passage is about women being submissive to me, and FWIW they aren't sure Paul wrote it and they aren't sure it was just meant for Ephisians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the church I grew up in - LDS. It's the reason I left. I wish it would change as the church gave me a mostly lovely childhood, and I wish I could give some of that to my kids, but I can't do it anymore. How can I run a successful business and sit on boards, but at church, my role is to submit? I also have a daughter to consider.

Lady, you're supposed to "submit to each other." It's not a one way passage. Does no one read the 5:21 line?

[Anonymous]

Wives need to submit invoices to their husbands for all the unpaid work they do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like the church I grew up in - LDS. It's the reason I left. I wish it would change as the church gave me a mostly lovely childhood, and I wish I could give some of that to my kids, but I can't do it anymore. How can I run a successful business and sit on boards, but at church, my role is to submit? I also have a daughter to consider.

Lady, you're supposed to "submit to each other." It's not a one way passage. Does no one read the 5:21 line?

The very core of the LDS church is patriarchy, and no one is going to convince me that patriarchy is good for me, my family, or society. It's not a situation where men and women submit to each other. It's patriarchy from the living prophet to the bishop of a ward to the husband/father in a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

This.
You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

This is simply an incorrect interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I fear for anyone stupid enough to take that literally. A solid marriage is an equal partnership, not split down the middle 50/50.

I like the idea of one partner is primarily responsible to bring home the bacon, while the other one’s primary responsibility is to manage the home. Neither one is better than the other. They both help and support each other.

What’s not to like?

You completely misunderstand the scripture if that's what you think that verse means.

The Bible clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands' leadership. So, what he decides is the final say. He is also supposed to be the spiritual leader. Basically, women are second-class citizens and not equal partners.

But if the husband is the spiritual leader, he is commanded to put his wife's needs above his own. So, she turns out just fine.

Let's be honest... too many husbands don't do that, but many are quick to point out the first half of the verse of "wives submit to your husbands".

-Christian

Atheist but this sounds good to me. I'd submit to him if his plan was to make me happy. His plan, however, is to mostly ignore me.