Posted on 11/26/2001 2:49:05 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
I also agree that it would be foolhardy for my husband to make decisions on subject matters where I have more information! I absolutely have my own sphere of responsibilities for precisely that reason. However, I am always cognizant of the fact that my husband is my leader, and head, of our family. The fact remains that God requires me to submit gracefully should the occasion ever arise over something we cannot agree or compromise over. For instance--a job transfer. The final decision would always rest in my husband, and I find rest in the knowledge that my husband is, indeed, a servant leader who truly seeks to put our needs ahead of his. That doesn't preclude the fact that we may come to two different conclusions about what is best for our family, though. :)
Ahhh! You've been listening to the men, who always start their exegesis with Ephesians 5:22. Read 5:21 and remember that the paragraph and verse markers came later and are not part of Scripture.
With regards to submission, that doesn't mean putting your will aside and doing his will. It means making your will conform to his so that his will and your will are the same. This is a much harder task. Remembering that the husband and wife are a type of our relationship to Christ, it makes the Christian walk much more rewarding. If you say to yourself, "Well, I want to have premarital sex but I won't because Jesus doesn't want me to," resentment will build and you will likely rebel and do the thing you "don't want to do." But when you reach the point where you don't want to have premarital sex like Jesus doesn't want you to, because you believe it is wrong just as He believes it is wrong, you wont resent what He isn't allowing you to do and you won't rebel.
In the same way, your husband might finally decide to move and you "submit" by saying, "I really don't want to move, but because you say so I will move." That can create a rift that only a miracle can heal. But if the two of you become of one mind there is no rift and no need to heal.
In our home, if there is no unity, there is no decision. There is no final authority but Jesus. When my wife and I disagree, I wait until He has had his chance to straighten one of us out.
It's usually me, but that's another story.
Shalom.
My husband and I are probably in agreement 99% of the time. However, since I haven't become a clone of him, nor him of me, there have been a few occasions of disagreement. I, personally, see this as healthy.
"......there is no decision." This sounds nice hypothetically, but, in fact, makes no sense. Sometimes, "no" decision IS a decision. :) (Take the job transfer hypothetical.....)
"In the same way, your husband might finally decide to move and you "submit" by saying, "I really don't want to move, but because you say so I will move." That can create a rift that only a miracle can heal. But if the two of you become of one mind there is no rift and no need to heal."
And I suggest that it is quite possible to find God's peace in a decision made by my husband. After all, he was put there by God. I'm glad my happiness does not depend on my husband and I thinking and walking in lockstep 100% of the time. We have two different personalities, and he thinks like a man, and I think like a woman. I thank God that our 25 years of marital happiness hasn't depended on our thinking exactly alike.
Viva la differences!
There's only one problem with this. Premarital sex has clear moral ramifications. It's a sin. Taking a job transfer "can" be a morally neutral decision over which two people disagree about what is best for the family.
If one person is holding to his decision for purely personal and selfish reasons, then I would say that does have moral ramifications. However, not every decision in life is a black and white, moral decision.
Amen to that. But you misunderstood me. I would never ask my wife to walk in lockstep with me. I'm too poor a model. We are both trying to be better at walking in lockstep with Jesus.
You're about 5 years ahead of me. 20th anniversary is next month.
Shalom.
True, but in every mutually exclusive choice, G-d does know which is the best choice to make.
Shalom.
Not at all.
Now.....about that exegesis. Let's begin with "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Actually, let's begin before then. Paul writes at length about how we are to act as "the body of Christ". No falsehoods, no slander, not to sin in our anger, no unwholesome speech. Be imitators of God, no sexual immorality, no course joking, don't be foolish, don't get drunk...."Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord,.....in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Here this demand to submit to one another is surely speaking to the church body at large. Paul just spent quite a bit of time, basically, exhorting everyone to "get along and put others first. These are general admonitions to the church. They are not a blueprint for church or family structure.
Then, Paul begins to speak specifically to different relationships within the church body.
"Wives submit to your husband, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church."
Although there are several passages in scripture that speak to the unique husband/wife relationship, this one is exceedingly clear. Christ is the head of the church. Period. Right? Then husbands are the head of their wives, since he uses the Christ/head of church analogy.
Again, Colossians makes this point clear.
I urge you to read the journal articles at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
God has created a beautiful complimentary relationship between man and woman where we find our utmost freedom in Christ to become as he intended.
I'm working from memory here, SFG, but I believe that Scott writes in his biography of faith ("Rome Sweet Home") that he was indeed virulently anti-Catholic while at seminary and afterward as a Protestant pastor. He did indeed write and deliver anti-Catholic sermons, and he considered often denounced the Catholic Church while a seminary student. When one of his closest friends (one of his active compatriots in opposing the Catholic Church at seminary) converted to that Church, Hahn was devastated and tried very hard to help his friend see the "error" of his ways.
Hahn isn't the only former anti-Catholic to turn to Rome, either. There are plenty of other examples as well (Steve Ray, Thomas Howard, etc.)
Pax
True, but in every mutually exclusive choice, G-d does know which is the best choice to make.
Shalom.
And what happens if both spouses are not at the same place in their walk with God? If I happen to "think" that I'm more spiritually mature than my husband, does that give me the right to claim the decision making process in my marriage? In such a case, the husband is still the head of the wife.
P.S. I find it rather funny that you accused me of listening to men. I came to the belief that husbands were the head of their wives/families through reading my bible. WE were attending a very liberal Catholic Church that would have scoffed at such an idea.
I'll submit that the "quibbling" you and I are doing is more theological than practical. Your marriage and mine likely follow very similar blueprints. The starting point of this is whether women can be allowed to be leaders in the Church, not whether women and men have different ways to carry out their duties as given to them by G-d.
I'll submit that Church leadership as we understand it today is very different from what was discussed in the New Testament. You gave that away when you suggested that deacons were a lower form of leadership than the priesthood. This distinction doesn't appear in the New Testament.
Based on the New Testament model of leadership, I will agree that women should not be Shepherds. But today's Church leaders are very different from the Shepherds of the New Testament. Sometimes these leaders perform a Shepherd's function, but it is becoming rarer and rarer in my personal experience. All of this to say that we are probably closer together in our understanding than this arguing over jots and titles implies.
By the way, I forgot to congratulate you for your 25 years. And may you have 25 more even more blessed than the first.
Shalom.
G-d has a way of taking care of those situations - usually by the more spiritually mature being lovingly patient.
P.S. I find it rather funny that you accused me of listening to men. I came to the belief that husbands were the head of their wives/families through reading my bible. WE were attending a very liberal Catholic Church that would have scoffed at such an idea.
Good for you. Stick by your convictions as the Holy Spirit gives them to you - as long as your husband agrees. I presume you've checked this out with him? After all, you're arguing with me and I am a man! (big grin)
Shalom.
And, yes, my husband now holds strong views on biblical headship. Growing up, we had no strong role models for that in the Catholic Church we attended or at home. Most of the sermons were of the God-is-love variety, and stayed far away from anything to do with morality or authority. Too "judgemental".....you know?
I am confused by one thing you wrote: "You gave that away when you suggested that deacons were a lower form of leadership than the priesthood. This distinction doesn't appear in the New Testament."
Actually, I think I stated that deacons were servants only, and not servant/leaders. We're no longer Catholic. We have elders and deacons in our church, and there is a distinct difference in their roles, just as in the New Testament. (Of course, complicating matters are some Baptist churches who refer to their "board" of leaders as "deacons"). We were drawn to our church precisely because of it's strong male leadership. It was a refreshing change from hearing a bunch of women yakking away at the priests telling them what to do. We were very tired of being in a church were the priest performed his functions on the altar, while the women ran everything off the alter. Heck, at one time, I was on our parish board, and I can assure you that the priests in our parish didn't want to mess with me. :( I have sincerely repented of that attitude, by the way. It's been very nice discussing this with you. God bless, and may we both have many more anniversaries to come.
Jo (Do check out the journal articles at the website I mentioned......if only to fine tune your debate skills on this topic. :) )
And now you come to the crux of my point. In the Church, leaders are servants. Servants are leaders. This was why Jesus chastized the Apostles who wanted to sit at His right and left hands. They wanted trappings and special treatment at the hands of men. Jesus, our model of leadership, gave all this up.
"If you would be a leader you must serve, and the greatest among you must be the slave of all."
"Just as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransome for many."
That's Jesus talking. There is no such thing as "just a servant" in the Church. Servanthood is what the Church is all about. And if you look at history, all true leadership, all true kingship, all true headship in the home, is about serving. Jesus came not to LORD it over us, but to lift us all up to be the most we could be.
Just so you understand - I wear the pants in my family. My wife just tells me which pair.
Shalom.
There is a distinction, my friend. I wrote servant/leader precisely because all leaders in the church "are" servants. Not all servants are leaders within the church structure, though. I am NOT a leader of my elders. They are most certainly leaders over me. :) God bless. My suspicions are that you and I basically agree, but that you attend a church with female leadership, and are unwilling to say that it's wrong. Am I very far off base? Oh, well......even if my suspicions are correct, I doubt that you would admit them.
I haven't attended a church with female leadership for over 6 years. There were serious problems with the churches that had female leadership. At the time I attributed the problems to the particular females and their need to either 1) press the feminist issue and redefine G-d in the process or 2) pretend they weren't leaders while leading. I have no patience with either one.
Not all servants are leaders? I'll have to think about that one. But in today's church, most leaders aren't servants - or they certainly aren't pastors. They're just administrative heads. IMO: A woman can do that as well as, if not better than, a man.
Did you read the post I wrote about the woman who lead the worship from behind the scenes? That was a church that would not allow woman "leaders." She was still a leader though and had the most humble heart. Admitting out loud that she was a leader would have done that church a world of good, IMO.
Shalom.
I think the answer to that is to find men who are willing to assume their role as spiritual leaders, not give up and turn to women leaders. I know what you're talking about, though. The elders who are more at ease with a financial statement than a statement of faith. :) We visited some of those churches.
God bless, and gotta' run.
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. How does this alter your table or is God only interested in America?
129 posted on 11/27/01 1:16 PM Eastern by wtc911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
That's real good. I use that line on the catholics, too. They don't reply with cites, either.
Pound sand.
I didn't say that, but now that you mention them by denomination...
Be very careful who you follow. That's how cults get started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.