Opera Nut

That's one of the big problems with Xtianity:

PENIS = WISDOM.

Not true. God gave me a brain and a uterus and I use both, to quote Patricia Schroeder.

=====
Down here in Tex-ass where the weather is a lot like Hell, any woman who wears long dresses, long sleeves, heavy fabrics, and high necks is gonna DIE in the heat!!

I've seen Pentacostal women with their hair piled up on their head, ratted and sprayed, and dowdy dresses and no makeup. They look like fat white pigs.

Muffinstuffer

You do have some very good points, I admit, and there's no way around human nature, good or bad. But I think you missed something there. Obviously when I say "the wife is supposed to give all authority/responsibility to the husband" that just sounds wrong. HOWEVER....nowhere in there did I say the wife has NO say or recourse. When I pay bills at home, when I buy a vehicle, I'm taking 'authority' in executing decisions, and I'm also taking on the full responsibility of those decisions/actions. However, I can assure you that in NO way am I the only one making these decisions. Part of my responsibility, as I see it, is to make SURE that I go to my wife and ask her opinion, because I have learned over time that my wife has a VERY discerning eye for a lot of financial stuff that I do not have, and in other areas as well.

In other words, I am the 'authority' at home, and I'm responsible for the decisions I make. However, I can honestly say that it would be almost impossible for me to operate day to day without my wife. In fact, she is part of the reason that my finances do not suck as badly as they could. She is in no way 'submissive' to me other than giving - GIVING, not surrendering - me responsibility and authority for actions/decisions that affect both of us.

Now obviously, however, you sort of hit the nail on the head when you said that God giving people responsibility is not the same as people actually carrying that responsibility out. And if both parties do not work at this - the wife to give the authority/responsibility to the husband, and the husband to USE that authority/responsibility to make wise decisions AND to consult his wife in all things that affects them both - it won't work. But I have seen it work many times over. As a matter of fact, with almost all of the Christian families at the church I go to, the man is the spiritual 'leader' and is the one that makes the decisions, but EVERYONE can see, and knows, that the woman is the driving force behind the household...the 'glue' that holds it all together. The ONLY thing the man has is the authority/responsibility to carry out actions and make decisions that affect both parties - and wisely, hopefully.

paul30

One of the many reasons I am not a Christian is the obnoxious attitude toward women.

For those of you who think the Bible should be followed in this attitude, consider also that the Bible mandates and supports slavery.

Are you willing to go back to that???????

mike_decock

Christians just don't see the sexism in this attitude. The "in charge" man thinks he's doing good when he consults his wife's "opinion". If you have joint finances, you should be asking for her consent when making financial decisions. It's her money just as much as it is yours when you have a joint account.

I think the Christian attitude boils down to the notion that "marriage can't be a democracy" because there are only two voters. Somebody has to be "in charge", make decisions and take responsibility. It sounds logical, but it's sexist bullshit.

-Mike...

mike_decock

I have a problem with the whole thing.

So a woman needs a man to make her holy? I guess women are incapable of being holy by their own right, huh?

So the wife is ordered to be a spiritual trophy wife for the husband (after he cleans her up and makes her "holy", that is).

More objectifying rhetoric. What about respecting the woman's mind? Nah, just think of her as your second body.

Yeah, feed and care for the wife like a pet. Just like we should blindly trust and obey Christ, wives should blindly trust and obey their husbands.

Yup. One flesh with one mind... the man's, of course.

Hmmm... I thought he was talking about wives submitting to husbands. Make up your mind, Paul.

No mention of the husband respecting the wife, of course.

That people can take such a twisted, sexist doctrine and call it good makes me sick.

-Mike...

livius drusus

Muffinstuffer, your interpretation overlooks the centuries of philosophical association of woman with the physical and man with the intellectual. When Paul says a husband is the head and a wife the body, he's reiterating conclusions drawn by the likes of Aristotle and accepted as a given for millenia that women are body (uterus, instinct, manual labour), while men are brain (abstract thought, reason, control of self and others).

So it's not the "submit" part that is the essential problem. Of course the body submits to the mind. The essential problem is that the entire analogy presupposes female inferiority when it assumes the carnality of one gender and the intellect of the other.

BioBeing

Muffinstuffer - you may be able to explain away this one passage, but when it is taken along with the bible's attitude to women in general, it is very hard to come away with anything but the idea that women are second class citizens.

villainess

So if your wife gets to make input into the decisions, why shouldn't she also take responsibility for them?

And I still need more specifics on what recourse a wife has when her husband makes bad decisions. Say, hypothetically, that Joe Fundamentalist feels "led by the Lord" to send his son Bobby's college fund to televangelist Bill Cat. Is Mrs. Joe supposed to stand by and see her own child's future squandered if she can't talk him out of it? Should she really expect a Mother's Day card if she does? Is the idea that she can just cast all the blame onto her husband because she was biblically submitting to him, and what does this say about her as a moral entity? Or does she have some right to stonewall the decision, and if so where is that indicated by Paul?

the_villainess

Muffinstuffer

There's no reason why she can't take responsibility for them, but if the guy is the one making the decision, ultimately he's the one responsible.

Rolling pins, pots, pans...... Seriously, see my answer below.

First, the entire aim of the whole relationship between the man and woman is to mirror that relationship between Christ and the church. Personally, I do not think that Christ would blow a whole college fund on Bill the Cat's ministry. (I'd hope not anyways. ) And granted, men aren't perfect. (As if people have not figured this out yet. ) As far as recourse goes, I'm not sure where it is indicated, or if it is indicated, but then again, if what the husband is doing is NOT in God's will - if it does NOT line up with the Bible - then I do not see how the wife taking steps to ensure that actions taken ARE in line with what the Bible teaches would be wrong.

BadBadBad

It says submit to the husbands in all things as if he were God. That the man is the head of the wife. Now you can go on to talk about the godly role for husbands all you want, but that pretty much sums it up for the women. That is the issue here, not what role the man has. Now tell me how many women do you honestly know that submit to husbands in all matters as if he were God?

Who are you kidding? I don't need my wife to participate in any matter that's important to our family. I could make all the decisions and maintain all authority without consent in all matters. I have four kids. I could treat her just like one more and still love her just as much as I do the other children. That's what the Bible is describing here.

This is a story about God and his children. The parent has all the authority. The children submit to that authority in all matters. The parent is responsible and culpable for all matters relating to the children. That doesn't alleviate any responsibility for the children. They still have their chores and duties to run the household. If I want a new car, I might ask the children their choice on color, but whether to buy the new car, what kind of car, the price, financing, when to buy it, etc. etc is all up to me. I have a completely different relationship with my wife, and I suspect that you do to.

I suggest to you that christians don't follow this doctrine. They used to. My grandad never told my grandmother how much money he made. There was no joint checking account. She made no financial decisions. She asked his consent on every purchase she made, and his decision was final. She had a small budget to run the household on, and that's it. When she worked, she turned over the money to him. There was no conflict with this arrangement for over fifty years. How many women would be happy with that model today? What percentages of christian marriages would end in divorce if women were happy to submit to men in all things as if he were God?

How many teenagers would move away from home over conflicts in authority if they were happy to submit to their parents in all things as if they were God? Let's take away the women part of this and talk about adult humans. Do you think it realistic that all adult humans would ever be happy submitting to another adult human in all things as if he were God? Some small percentage would be happy to live as a child all their life. A larger percentage could be bullied into submission by a physically stronger person, through financial weakness, and through a culture that demanded that submission. Does that sound familiar with respect to the submission of women to men?