Wives should submit to their husbands????

"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.

 

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Now there, I agree with you completely.

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.

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.

 

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.

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

No one questions the existence of headship authority.

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.

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.

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).

 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.