From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Men's/Women's roles in Marriage (Christian Leadership)
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:22:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: geneva.Oct.16.22.22.51.1992.29081
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Oct.16.03.41.49.1992.27476@geneva.rutgers.edu> thughes@ug.cs.dal.ca (Tracy L. Hughes) writes:
>Re : Christian Leadership as applied to marriage:
>    Thus a man can only retain position as head
>    of his family and still be a true Christian in his wife truly believes
>    that he should do so.

According to Scripture, man is to be the head.  Men are commanded to love
their wives.  Elders are to rule their households well (though this may
be taken as applying more to children) but in general men are not commanded
to make their wives submit.  If the wife does not submit, then it is her
sin, not her husband's.

>Now by definition this doesn't seem to be a problem in a true Christian marriage
>as the wife would be willing to let the husband assume this position.
>EXCEPT:
>
>2)  Such a position must be assumed FOR THE  GOOD of those who will be 
>    submitting.  So saying that the position of man as head of the family
>    is a Christian leadership position is saying that it is ALWAYS in the
>    best interests of the wife to be in a position of submission.  First
>    of all this is not externally obvious as there are women who are more
>    spiritually mature than their husbands.  Saying that it is then their
>    position to teach their husbands is not enough...it is obvious that the
>    truest Christian should lead a Christian household for the Good of both...
>    and that truest Christian will not always be the man.

The Scriptures do not put such stipulations on the husband's role.  On the
contrary, wives are commanded to submit to their husbands, _even if their
husbands are unbelievers._  It is not a question of Spiritual maturity.
It is a question of who has God-given authority.  Obedience to God always
works out for good.

For an example of submission, look at Daniel.  When Daniel saw that he was
going to have to eat meat offered to idols, he did not refuse to eat it
with a rebellious attitude (like so many of us may have done.)  Instead,
he prayed, and God granted him favor with his superiors, who allowed him
to eat only vegetables if he remained healthy.  Even though these rulers were
not godly, and were commanding him to sin, he was able to submit to them
without sinning.

Secondly 
>    one should remember that woman's submission to their husbands is A 
>    CONDITION OF THE FALL.  Prior to the fall husband and wife were
>    helpmates...there was no leadership/submission relationship defined
>    (anyone who postulates one before the fall is doing so outside of
>    the scriptures).  Thus women are not naturally submissive, so it is
>    not in their best interests to expect them to submit for that
>    reason.

Paul felt their was some signifigance to man being made first.  Nevertheless,
submission is a command in the New Testament.  Also, notice from I Timothy
that even now women still have pain in child bearing, also a part of the 
curse.

>Since the position
>of man as head of the household is not a true "Christian Leadership position",
>as it is not always in the best interests of the submitting party and it is
>not always taken on with the full authority of the submitting party, then
>the position of man always being head of the household DOES NOT FOLLOW from
>the commandment Jesus gave us.

Scripture contradicts this premise.  It teaches that men are given this 
authority and even compares it to Christs authority.


Just because Paul stated it explicitely
>one way does not mean that it is not EQUALLY true the other way.  To say
>as much is to presume to add to the commandments conditions that were
>nowhere stated by Jesus...conditions such as "this is true EXCEPT in a marriage
>where a wife must always submit to her husband (even when he is unworthy of
>this)" is to presume to know what is right better than Jesus...I think this
>is going a little too far myself...

Many people, at least myself, hold Paul's writings in high esteem because
we believe that He got his teaching from Christ.  If it were just his own
opinion, why would we pay it any attention?  How are we to know what Christ
taught on marriage.  All of his teachings are not in the gospels as we know
from John.  The apostles taught the Lord's teachings.  Isn't it presumptuous
to contradict the Lord's teachings which he delivered through the apostles?
Or are only the teachings we like the Lord's teachings?

Link Hudson.




>
>-Tracy
>