Women, Stop Submitting to Men

Hey Jaigner,

One thing I appreciate about evangelical feminists is that one is never left in doubt as to where they actually stand on things.

What's your take on Paul's argument for man's authority over the woman based on the order of creation which occurred before the fall?

Just so you know, I think that the principles of biblical submission have been (mis)used throughout history to abuse, mistreat, demean, and malign women and denigrate their equal value and diminish the honor and respect they rightfully deserve from the men they've brought into this world.

BTW, I just finished reading a novel with my kids called The Witch of Blackbird Pond. Extremely captivating story about a free-minded girl from Barbados who, upon the death of her grandfather, went to live with her Puritan aunt and uncle and their two daughters in Connecticut in the 1600s. Well, as you can imagine, the theme of harsh women subservience due to "biblical" tradition permeates the entire novel, and one is of course led to cheer for this girl Kit from Barbados who actually submits to and builds respect from her harsh uncle. However, she does not submit to her uncle's wishes to stay away from the Quaker, and she chooses instead to do what is right before God and eventually save the life of the old and godly Quaker widow, whom the Puritans hated and persecuted and accused of being a witch and wanted to put to death when an outbreak of the flu killed several of the town's children.

All that to say, I do think in some ways your feelings may be related to the ungodly and misunderstood notions and applications of biblical submission throughout history, and I'm sorry about that.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Hahaha, one of the things I enjoy the most is making the bed with my wife every morning. Occasionally I surprise her and make it all by myself while she's in the shower. However, I still don't quite know how all the pillows go, and I still don't quite know why we need 29 pillows on the bed. Nevertheless, I've put her in charge of all things domestic, and boy am I glad for that. BTW, I find some pleasure in washing the dishes in the evening while my wife relaxes on the couch after fixing and eating a great meal. Something therapeutic about it.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

 

A "Hot Bottom" issue in this entire discussion is the concept of the trinity having both submission/equality/subordination within the Godhead!

My Pastor is in NT theology studies has an earned PHD in this area, and has found out that the "Evangelical feminists" are really trying their best to undermine this entire area, as it is to them "male domination"

 

Yes, our bodies are not our own, for we are one flesh. This has not to do with biblical submission as much as it does biblical commitment and faithfulness.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Joyce Meyer? Are you serious?!?!?

Nobody is ignoring Scripture. Do some reading. Look up Wright, Webb and Stackhouse on the subject.

Yes we are, but we're just not exactly like all the ones you know.

 

John Calvin, Institutes IV.10.29-30:

"the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like. . . .Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee which is made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a human tradition, which any one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect? I say, that it is human, and that at the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle; and it is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general, rather than expounded. From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought of the whole class—viz. that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts of divine worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded, in his sacred oracles, so that in them he alone is the only Master to be heard. But as in external discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every particular that we ought to observe (he foresaw that this depended on the nature of the times, and that one form would not suit all ages), in them we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the Church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.
Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided."

 

No one needs to go read them. It is no surprise that they would support this unscriptural idea.

 

Have any of the posters on this thread actually read the article put forth in the OP? If so, you will see that the article plainly states that women are to submit to their own husbands and not to all men in general. There is a HUGE difference.

I thought it was a very good article, and true. I am to submit to God and my dh--not just any man who happens to come along to tell me what to do.

So, getting this thread on track with the OP, do you or don't you agree with the article?

 

Uh....okay?

 

The plain thing from that verse is that a wife and no other woman has the right to her man's body.

 

I Tim. 2:12, Young's Literal Translation:
and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

Correct, this is about marriage dynamics, not the wife's interaction with either John Doe or Joe Churchman.

Paul is telling wives not to "school"/be domineering towards their husbands.

 

Ok, ok, GB, you got me. The husband absolutely must submit to any sexy proposition from his hot woman. That's all the verse means. And any man who doesn't want to submit to that really has some submission issues!

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

Here we go again. . .

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
​

Traditional gender roles are biblical, and part of Creation. You want out? Die and go to heaven where there is neither male nor female, nor marriage.

 

care to site any of those folks than?

 

And therefore it is the woman's place to usurp the authority as God has laid it out?

How does that work in agreement with Scriptures?

 

As I posted more than once on this thread, I am in agreement with the thinking behind the article and as Annisi has listed (with a slight modification by me).

I highlight the part of the article that spells out the danger of submission by a wife to the authority of any but the husband - especially that of pastoral authority.

I don't find that submission Scriptural.

If the pastor is to bring a woman who is married into alignment with some agenda, then it must take place THROUGH the husband. The preacher should never presume to have authority within the home of any family other than his own.