From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's Roles in Marriage
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:28:09 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Oct.10.02.34.32.1992.16729@geneva.rutgers.edu> thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tracy L. Hughes) writes:
>One argument I am often concerned with seeing...one that is in support
>of women submitting to their husbands in marriage, is the following:
>
>The position that the man takes is the one with greater responsibility,
> ergo the most difficult.  A man is commanded to love his wife more than
> himself, and this is near impossible to do in all situations.  A woman
> should have no problems submitting herself to a man who is willing to
> die for her.

I'm not familiar with that position (that it's easier for the woman), though
that could be because I've been blessed to be around people that have a
fairly mature faith.  What I have heard, and what I agree with, is that in
order for a woman to truly follow this commandment, she must do so out of
a position of great strength.  It's the opposite of the stereotypical
"doormat" version of submission that we usually think of.  For a
woman to willingly and joyfully submit herself to a fallen human being is
for her to make herself extremely vulnerable.  And the only way she can
consciously and continually do that is out of tremendous faith in God. 
Anything less would not be the kind of conscious submission I believe God
asks of us; it would be more of a cowering, legalistic, and deep-down
resentful kind.  

I like what LeAnn Payne said:  that a woman submits to her husband
inasmuch as he is submitting to God.  In other words, her first priority
is submission to God; if her husband's will conflicts with that, she
doesn't submit to him but rather to God.  On those (frequent) occasions
where the will of God may not be so obvious, a woman is called to use
tremendous resources of strength to trust the man she married.   

The best Christian marriages I've seen have been those where the husband,
when confronted with a decision, consults with God and his wife.  If a
consensus is reached, fine.  If not, he then thinks of his wife's needs,
even above his own, when coming to a conclusion.  Not necessarily her
desires, but her needs.  And, because he loves her, her desires will be
important, too.  God doesn't always give us our desires, but He does meet
our needs.  It's up to a husband, I believe, to have a mature enough faith
to be able to know God, know his wife and her true needs, and base his
decisions accordingly.  That's a tough order, too; I don't see either sex
as having the "harder" or "easier" role in a marriage.   

In fact, I'd say that each spouse needs to recognize the tremendous
exertion the other is making -- he to love her selflessly, and she to
consciously and willingly submit herself to him.  Neither should take what
the other is doing for granted, or as a "right," but rather as a gift.

>If you view every
>word as absolutely true (despite the well known fact that the Bible does
>contain contradictions...mind you this may be a translation problem) then
>you need go no further to find your proof.  If, however, you define the
>Bible as simply carrying the essential tenents of Christianity rather than
>being word-for-word true (i.e. The words of Christ hold the weight..as long
>as they (and the ten commandments, which follow from the words of Christ)
>are obeyed then what doesnt follow directly from them can be overlooked as
>a symptom of the social context in which the verse in question was written),
>then a group of Christians can find a clear reason why the clause that
>women submit to their husbands is not essential and ergo can be ignored.
>
I do regard the Bible is true, as well as full of paradox.  I've struggled
long and hard over the marriage verses, and have prayed for more than 15
years for help with them.  I think I'm finally getting there, but it's
mainly happening because I'm getting a better understanding of my Father
in heaven and how he feels about me.  I know that he loves me, that he
doesn't see me as a second-class citizen in any way but a full "son" and
inheritor of the kingdom as well as a precious daughter, uniquely
feminine; I know he doesn't want me in an abusive relationship with a man
who will "lord it over me" in some power-hungry way.  It's my
understanding of God that has changed first, and my understanding of these
verses seems to be following.

>Is it worth damaging the faith of so many modern day women who view marriage
>as a joining of equals and who view women's equality as something which is
>clearly right, to insist that such an inessential clause, one that does
>not logically follow from Christ's commandments to us except BOTH ways..
>i.e. husband and wife BOTH submit to each other as we should all submit to
>those we love...be followed.  I think it does more harm than good.

I think that it can, if that's all we're presented with and it's hammered
home without any context of love.  I see our first priority as one of
understanding God and our relationship to him, and asking him in all
humility to teach us the truth -- even when it seems tough.



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu