is it good to be the submissive wife

It does to me yes but you believe with your faith and I'm not gonna try changing that, I know the bible upside down in and out , raised by a southern baptist black woman ,, I was lucky if I caught the 1pm kick off and that's me jumping on my bike after the preachers 23 times telling the church he wasn't gonna keep us to much longer , for me now I don't even pretend to believe any of that

 

Thanks for those heartfelt comments. I can tell that the lifestyle means a lot to you, both in terms of your faith and your past experience. While respecting your experiences, let me just say this:

With regard to your home life, it sounds like what you needed or wished for, wasn't a father in a dominant role, but a mother who wasn't manipulative. Her actions made the problems, not your father, judging from what you wrote.

As far as the leader/ruler analogy, we as a species have decided that is generally not right for us, hence the move away from kings/high priests and toward greater democracy (for all its faults). The family is the smallest unit of society, and if the society should be guided by democracy and reason, why not the family?

 

My man I am picking up what you are putting down, I told the story b4, show up at my childhood church for Mother's Day a birthday don't remember, all the elders giving me the you should be coming to this church not your wife's , I'm looking at them like I'm here because of my mother and I Attend church for my wife,, raising kids in faith isn't horrible please don't get that idea but I've never believed just got good at faking it but the absurdity in my mind for a man to think just because I'm a man means she should follow me is out dated and silly ,

 

man i hated going to a black church....youvwill never make it home for the first qtr.

u was lucky to make it halftime.

 

There is only two people voting in a one woman one man marriage its just not possible. It doesn't mean that it can't be reasonable.

Ches made a good point when she said her family had some issues because her dad did not step up. If the man doesn't step up and things fall apart because of it, he gets the blame for not taking ownership and leading the family. That's just the way it is. What if a teenage son was out of control, and the father did not do anything about it? Would it be the kids fault for bringing trouble to the family, or the fathers fault for not stepping up and making sure that the kid respects his mother and does what is expected of him? It's all about responsibility.

The same thing goes for financial support of the family. Sure the woman can be the primary bread winner, but if the lights get turned off it is still the mans' fault.

If you are a man and you have a family. You should dig ditches if that's what it takes to keep the lights on.

 

it is done through democracy.

we need to define the role of leader before going further.

in my eyes a leader is a visionary, and a good listener and is the real servant to the people he lead.
with that in mind he beeds to understand the strengths in himself and the family and weakness of the family. from there he is responsible for the prosperity of the family.

the wife is the cosignor and helper . she is to provide support.
this means shes not going to allow him to do foolishness but assist him in doing what is right for the family....

the problem is people dont know how to put aside their pride and other emotions to do the right thing

 

My entire family is religious, whether Catholic, A.M.E. or Episcopal, and everyone had their head in that book. My brain just never worked that way and apart from all the obvious discrepancies and errors that make a fundamentalist reading nonsensical, the relevance of the belief system of a 5,000-year old desert shepherd society for the modern era never made any sense to me. And this is even more so when you think about how many people across the world have adopted it who have no relationship to that period or culture. I have great respect for the historical Jesus (assuming for a second that he existed, which I'm willing to accept), but using the text as a guide for modern social relations? Not so much.

And the closest modern thing to what the text idealizes is the modern family structure of an Orthodox Jewish household. People should not be under any illusions, the standard Middle Eastern family model is what the Bible is talking about, because that's what the people who wrote the Bible were. In Saudi Arabia, the mother is the head of the internal household and can order servants around, etc, but this is because women are not social actors, so their power ends at the compound walls. The man charts the course in all things external. I think people have idealized their interpretation of what this relationship was by putting a modern imprint on it and making it sound like the apex of total love and respect: the man is totally in love with his wife and will be a good guy if the woman just stops challenging him - sounds like a modern anti-feminist argument from the Promise Keepers to me.

I often wonder why people who take some sections so literally don't also follow Jewish Sabbath, eat kosher, not wear linen with leather, etc. Jesus did, so why not them?

Goodlove and Beasty, thanks for the comments. I think this is another instance of agreeing to disagree, lol.

Goodlove, I don't subscribe to the idea of a leader, as it fosters dependence in my mind. I think all people are equal and everyone should be trained to the upper limit of their intellectual and physical abilities. Everyone is a leader and no one charts the course for all. We arrive at the course together using reason. Unfortunately, many people do not reason and go with emotion or their gut, but I was just speaking in terms of the ideal. I agree with you about people being too fixated on their ego and pride. I think that is a lot of what has men insisting on being the heads of families.

Beasty, I disagree with your analogy likening a parent/child relationship to a husband/wife one. In the former you have a child who is mentally/socially incapable of fully comprehending their actions. In the latter you have two adults (at least in theory). I agree about both parents doing what is required to keep the lights on and feed a family. I don't see that obligation as solely on the man.

 

This is the type of leader I always strived to be when I was a supervisor. My people ALWAYS came first.

 

Nothing to add here

 

"o" ...i get what you are saying...theres no real rite or wrong....as i and beasty noted leaders seek the best for the people they lead. they sacrifice before the followers do....when the followers see that ...a good wife will appreciate it and will follow too.

 

Now that's a sentiment I think we can all support.

 

Because Christ's death on the cross fulfilled the requirements of the law. We are no longer under the dispensation of the law but of grace.

As for my family situation, we really did need my father to step up and be a leader. He gave in to my mother because she suffers from panic disorder. Anything to keep her from having a panic attack. Even her usurping the leadership role in our family. When my dad realized the mistake he made, it was too late. That started when they were very young - not yet married. But that's history.

Here's my thought about commands that seem to be outdated but following them today: In reading the Bible and other marriage books, I've come to understand that, by and large, most men say the most important thing they want from their wives is respect. And the most important thing most women want from their husbands is to be loved - meaning they want to be prized and made to feel secure and provided for. That, in a nutshell, is what is behind God's commands to husbands and wives. At the root of each command, is the age-old reason for the command.

 

That's not what I was trying to do but ok.

 

Note the inconsistency here: you're exempt from some laws/requirements because Christ died for human sin, but not others. I know that much of the modern reformist Christian church holds this line, but it is incredibly inconsistent and situationally convenient.

In other words, what you (not you personally, but 'you' rhetorically) don't feel like doing, Christ gave you a pass, but what's convenient for the status quo is God's command to man.

My fault for misinterpreting. I thought you were comparing the responsibility a parent has for a child's misbehavior with the responsibility a man has for letting his home/family get out of his control, in terms of following a woman's leadership rather than his and in each case who is to blame for the results.

 

In summary: If something goes wrong its the leaders fault aka head of the household. It's only the woman's fault if she doesn't allow the man to lead.

In that case she is the leader and is therefore responsible for the failure.

Just the way it is, not my invention. I'm just here like the rest of us. Lol

 

:smt017

I have no idea what you're trying to say. God gave the Law to a specific people for a specific reason. He also gave it to demonstrate that man can't possibly keep the law to perfection. Hence, Christ's atoning death which fulfilled once and for all, the sacrificial system. It's not a matter of picking and choosing what to obey or what's covered by grace. It's a matter of understanding the purpose of the law and who it was given to and why.

 

Much of the specific language about the permissibility of breaking clothing and dietary covenants in the bible comes from Paul, not Christ, and is in the text about the incorporation of Gentiles into what was previously a Jewish sect. The ending of the sacrificial system through Christ's self-sacrifice freed followers from offering sacrifices or having rabbis intercede with God on a believer's behalf. Paul emphasized the importance of faith over law abiding behavior.

As an orthodox Jew, Jesus was raised kosher, observing the Sabbath on the correct day, etc. As an adult, he didn't emphasize it one way or the other. While Mosaic law does not bind non-Jews, if you are a member of a religion that sets up Christ as the example of correct behavior, shouldn't you strive to follow Christ's example, while recognizing that all will fall short of it? Or alternatively, if faith and forgiveness are the primary considerations - something Paul states - what is the point of following any rule or guideline, including the guideline for a proper marriage? Do as you please and just believe and be forgiven.

 

conversation getting deep

 

I appreciate Ches having an understanding of Christianity. It's refreshing. A lot of people just nod their head along with the pastor, but she has a doctrinal interpretation to support her beliefs. She's right about one part though - because I don't believe and she does, we won't be able to agree, because a certain amount of faith or suspension of disbelief is necessary. Where I find logical inconsistency in ideas such as the concept of different laws for different ethnic groups, a believer might find God's will, and it would end there.

 

lol. its good convo...just causevpeople disagree doesnt always someone us wrong