Is marriage really all that sacred to Christians?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Ignoring the last piece because it is based on a misinterpretation of what is being said I wouldn't be in disagreement with someone putting that beautiful quote up on a billboard. It promotes far better value to ones wife or indeed to women in general that many billboards featuring women or marriage do in the world.

[Citation needed]


My husband would be insulted if I submitted to him. He married an equal, not some helpmeet.

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

[Citation needed]


My husband would be insulted if I submitted to him. He married an equal, not some helpmeet.

Citation needed in what respect?

A billboard that promotes an entirely loving marriage is better than some billboards we see featuring women as mere sex objects or heavily implying such, and marriage as just a piece of paper, or movies disparaging married life and so on?

I think Ephesians 5 does regard men and women as equal. Scripture does as a whole if I look to say Galatians 3:28. What Ephesians 5 does state is that men and women have differing roles in marriage. Having different roles doesn't mean that a man and his wife aren't equal it just means that they serve differing functions within the marriage.

The view of leadership in the Bible doesn't mean a domineering position. Rather it means servant hearted leadership which puts others first. Indeed the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

lazygal

You're not married are you? So how would you know how it works? The headship/quiverfull/helpmeet movement in the USA has produced some pretty hairbrained ideas. How come wives submit to their husbands, are they unequal? Any woman I know would laugh at the idea of submitting to what's supposed to be a partner, not a headship.

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

You're not married are you? So how would you know how it works? The headship/quiverfull/helpmeet movement in the USA has produced some pretty hairbrained ideas. How come wives submit to their husbands, are they unequal? Any woman I know would laugh at the idea of submitting to what's supposed to be a partner, not a headship.

I know how it works because I see it. I have the blessing of regarding many married couples as close friends. Many of them hold to this passage as the model for Christian marriage.

It doesn't matter as to whether or not any woman you know would laugh at it, they can feel free to. Many women I know regard the Biblical idea of marriage as something beautiful. If you don't believe and trust in Jesus you're not going to be able to make sense of this because you don't know what Paul truly means when it says that Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.

By the by, my views aren't based on anyone in the US. They are based on the Bible so please have a bit of cop on and respond to the posts on their own merit.

lazygal

By the by, would you expect the woman you marry to submit to you? Would you expect her to promise to obey in the vows?
And by the by, the American movements I mentioned also base their actions and beliefs on the bible. Who's to know whether they're right and you've read it wrong.

philologos

I'm not going to discuss any organisation but what the Bible says, expecting me to comment on organisations in the US who had no role in forming my views on marriage is an absurdity.

What I will say is this if I do get married it will be to someone who believes and trusts in Jesus. Part of that of course means believing in a Christian position on marriage. Secondly if I do get married I'll see my main responsibility as servant hearted leadership in respect to my family. That's what the Bible puts forward as the design that God instituted for it at creation.

philologos

OP: can I point out that the Bible doesn't say that gay people are an abomination. It says that certain acts are an abomination. That's entirely different.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Have you even tried to understand, before throwing out the usual shallow atheist one-liners? No doubt the seals will clap their fins, but surely YOU are beyond this type of thing no?

I understand it perfectly, or at least I understand exactly the point the author is attempting to make.

I suspect you take a more romantic view of that passage, but then that just goes back to the discussion on the Gay mega thread about Christians having to put a modern milder twist on Biblical passages just to be a modern Christian.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to discuss any organisation but what the Bible says, expecting me to comment on organisations in the US who had no role in forming my views on marriage is an absurdity.

What I will say is this if I do get married it will be to someone who believes and trusts in Jesus. Part of that of course means believing in a Christian position on marriage. Secondly if I do get married I'll see my main responsibility as servant hearted leadership in respect to my family. That's what the Bible puts forward as the design that God instituted for it at creation.

Servant hearted leadership is exactly what these movements believe, like Jesus first, others second, and yourself last. Sounds familiar to me. You didn't answer my question on whether the woman who'll submit to you will promise to obey, by the by.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

No doubt its been abused by misogynists, but the marriage arrangement IS beautiful. You just need to understand what Love entails. Its not about the self, and thus your idea of 'womens rights' or somesuch entering into it is as misplaced as the concept of being able to FALL in or out of love. Again though, its no doubt its been abused over the years.
From a Godly perspective, its nothing to do with tyranny, or some kind of 'boss' arrangement. To think of it in such a manner really misses the point. You must understand the 'ONE FLESH' concept if you want to be rid of your misconception. How can a person be a tyrant over themselves? Was Jesus a tyrant when he went through life for his people and met his torturous end for his body (church)?
A husband was told to give himself to his wife sexually, as well as a wife to her husband, for they were no longer the sole owner of themselves. Its a complimentary relationship, that reflects God somehow (In the image of God they were created, Male and Female).
As a man who is nearly 10 years married, I can tell you that my experience is that my body (Wife) has never dominated me, nor have I (The Head) dominated her. Rather, we have complimented each other (most of the time ) When it comes to Love, I can assure you, the idea of a boss does not eneter the equation. The fact that you would introduce the concept, would maybe suggest that you don't understand Love, or more specifically, the deep love of God, and ths the Love a Christian should seek to emulate. No doubt the sentimental, and often selfish concepts about the place these days have probably corrupted peoples notion of Love.

If there is no power relationship or if the relationship is supposed to be equal why does it tell men to love and women to submit?

Zombrex

jill_valentine wrote: »

Love is not a non-reciprocal submission of one person to an automatically authoritative other.

Or if it is, we need another name for the thing where two people who feel a beautiful, profound and passionate affection for one another form a partnership, because it's not that. What you're presenting is the notion that this one way street is an equal deal because, naturally, the husband's love is in itself such a marvellous and precious and superior thing that it offers her as much as her absolute submission as a person would offer to him.

Ugh, the awfulness of the concept you're trying to spin positively here is compounded by how blankfaced you seem to be about how horrifying the implications. "No no, you don't understand! She gets to submit in everything to him! So that he can sanctify her, so that he might present her to himself in splendor! It's great! It's like we're too generous!"

It makes my skin crawl to watch rational adult humans defend an idea that defines another human being as their subject and expect them to feel grateful and blessed by such a role. And to tell me that I don't understand love?

By all means, put that passage on billboards all over the country. Add a silver tie and some handcuffs and you'll be on to a real winner.

Great post.

To equate your wife as a part of your body, ie something you have complete control over and something that exists to serve you, but to then say it is ok cause you love your body you don't abuse it, well could something miss the point any more?

philologos

I'm not going to discuss any other organisation.

Needless to say I haven't thought extensively about what exact vows could be said at a potential marriage service and I don't think I have to have that decided now . I won't be doing that for you.

However, I will be looking to marry a Christian when that arises and someone who believes what the Bible says about marriage. I believe that the Biblical view on marriage as found in Ephesians and in other places is God's design for marriage. I don't see anything objectionable and I see what is described as being entirely beautiful.

jill_valentine

Well of course, it's a configuration that serves entirely to your benefit after all.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

Well of course, it's a configuration that serves entirely to your benefit after all.

I disagree that it is unequivocal. There is a huge responsibility on the husband's shoulders to actually lead in a servanthearted manner that follows the example of Jesus.

The point of the Christian concept of marriage is that both parties serve one another and serve their wider families. It benefits all involved.

Its a rather trite reading of the passage to suggest that this model benefits only the husband. From what is there and from what I've seen in respect to married couples who do follow this model that's not how it works in practice.

jill_valentine

I know, I only imagine how heavy the responsibility of having a wife must weigh. Is she fed, is she indoors when it rains, has she got enough straw...

It's absolutely laughable to try and spin the "burden" of being in charge of another as being in any way comparable to the assumption of another adult's submission to your inherently superior authority. The unblinking arrogance of that thought process is staggering. It puts me in mind of old colonial soldiers whinging about the burden of civilising the conquered locals, as if that's somehow the worst part of the transaction.

How selfless indeed this Christian love.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I disagree that it is unequivocal. There is a huge responsibility on the husband's shoulders to actually lead in a servanthearted manner that follows the example of Jesus.

Why is the husband the leader? Is that purely because he happens to be of the same gender as Jesus?

I'm laughing at the idea of 'lead in a servanthearted manner' because that's precisely the biblical misogyny that's inspired leaders like Bill Gothard, the Pearls, and numerous other 'headship' movements in the USA. Yet they claim to be following the same book you do when instructing men to be the leaders and wives their helpmeets.
It's almost as if other Christians read the same bible you have and came to slightly similar conclusions, even though your 'version' of 'servanthearted' isn't the same as theirs.

philologos

Jill, honestly if you're not actually interested in finding out more about this and if you're intent on being facetious there's not much point.

If you're interested to chat further that's fine, if not or if you're not going to take this seriously it's better that we didn't.

My position doesn't say that husbands are superior to their wives. It doesn't require that assumption to be made. Indeed the Bible doesn't state it.

lazygal: I've told you I'm not going to discuss organisations I don't have a clue about, but I will discuss Scripture.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

My position doesn't say that husbands are superior to their wives. It doesn't require that assumption to be made. Indeed the Bible doesn't state it.

But husbands are required to be leaders? There's an inherent imbalance of power in a leader/submissive relationship.

What do unmarried or widowed women do? Who's their servant, leading them in submission?

Of course if you don't want to continue to defend the misogyny in the bible that's entirely understandable. My headship/servant leader person isn't here so I guess my submission to him is off the table for now, so I can post freely!

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

lazygal: I've told you I'm not going to discuss organisations I don't have a clue about, but I will discuss Scripture.

I'll lead you through them if you like, as they also follow scripture.

Here's some reading to be getting on with:
http://iblp.org/questions/how-can-i-meet-my-husbands-basic-needs
http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/excerpts-from-created-to-need-a-help-meet/?topic_slug=fathers-marriage


Now they follow scripture. How come their form of misogyny is not true, but yours is? How do you know God hasn't acted to guide you to post here, following those wise men, and reject your current form of scripture? How come they got it wrong?

philologos

I'm not going to discuss other groups. I'm going to discuss the Bible only. I've made that clear already.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to discuss other groups. I'm going to discuss the Bible only. I've made that clear already.

But there's lots of scripture in the links I posted. Why don't you want to discuss scripture?

jill_valentine

philologos wrote: »

Jill, honestly if you're not actually interested in finding out more about this and if you're intent on being facetious there's not much point.

If you're interested to chat further that's fine, if not or if you're not going to take this seriously it's better that we didn't.

My position doesn't say that husbands are superior to their wives. It doesn't require that assumption to be made. Indeed the Bible doesn't state it.

What part of "A must submit in all ways to B" am I misrepresenting? You dismiss me as facetious because you choose to see this lop sided deal in your favour as something just lovely altogether, but I'm deadly serious about the associations this arrangement mirrors.

This is a horrible, subjugating dynamic for the woman involved, and I'm sorry if the women here don't agree that just having a husband is such an honour that they should be made up at the chance to assume the place of his sub.

JimiTime

jill_valentine wrote: »

What part of "A must submit in all ways to B" am I misrepresenting?

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.

This is a horrible, subjugating dynamic for the woman involved, and I'm sorry if the women here don't agree that just having a husband is such an honour that they should be made up at the chance to assume the place of his sub.

If we had, 'Women, KNOW YOUR PLACE! MEN ARE YOUR OVERLORDS:) you'd be right. Simply put though, we don't. We have an arrangement of Love. We cannot bring in tyranny, or bosslike analogies once Love is in the equation.

1 Corinthians 13
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails.

Now if a husband and wife have this, which is what a Christian marriage is supposed to be, then all these issues of subjugation etc, simply disperse.The body does not look to work against its head, nor does a head look to work against its body. Ideally (Of course, selfishness still exists unfortunately)The idea of the self is no more in a Christian marriage, be you a wife OR a husband.
This idea of a 'winning side' etc, has no basis in reality. I work for my wife, and she works for me. My decisions are based (or should be) on the WHOLE OF ME, which is myself and my wife. Ditto my wife. And of course, we both freely entered into this together, and are very happy, with a blessing of 2 kids and one in the oven. So when I see your disgust, all I can see is my happy self, my happy wife, my happy children and my happy friends in the same situation.

eviltwin

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.







If we had, 'Women, KNOW YOUR PLACE! MEN ARE YOUR OVERLORDS you'd be right. Simply put though, we don't. We have an arrangement of Love. We cannot bring in tyranny, or bosslike analogies once Love is in the equation.



1 Corinthians 13

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.



8 Love never fails.



Now if a husband and wife have this, which is what a Christian marriage is supposed to be, then all these issues of subjugation etc, simply disperse.The body does not look to work against its head, nor does a head look to work against its body. Ideally (Of course, selfishness still exists unfortunately)The idea of the self is no more in a Christian marriage, be you a wife OR a husband.

This idea of a 'winning side' etc, has no basis in reality. I work for my wife, and she works for me. My decisions are based (or should be) on the WHOLE OF ME, which is myself and my wife. Ditto my wife. And of course, we both freely entered into this together, and are very happy, with a blessing of 2 kids and one in the oven. So when I see your disgust, all I can see is my happy self, my happy wife, my happy children and my happy friends in the same situation.

Is your marriage a partnership or would you be more likely than your wife to make decisions relating to the home/family?

JimiTime

eviltwin wrote: »

Is your marriage a partnership or would you be more likely than your wife to make decisions relating to the home/family?

Its more than a partnership, and decisions are made by both of us, sometimes together, and sometimes separately. We tend to recognise each others strengths and wisdoms, and MOST of the time we are in agreement with the family decisions. On occasion when there is conflict, I will trust her judgement in certain things more than my own, at other times, she would trust mine. I'm actually trying to think of occasions where conflict lingers, and honestly nothing is springing to mind (But I may just not be recalling).
EDIT: Just noticed that it looks like I'm presenting this 'everthing is perfect' impression of my marriage. Now while I am in a fantastic marriage, we fight and argue at times like most do. We suffer the same human frailties as everyone else. Just needed to say that, as looking back on the posts, I'm seeing my wife flouncing through the door with freshly baked cookies as I kiss her etc etc . Reality is, with two toddlers, its more often than not tired baggy eyes, irritable Jimi being short and cantankerous

Zombrex

jill_valentine wrote: »

I know, I only imagine how heavy the responsibility of having a wife must weigh. Is she fed, is she indoors when it rains, has she got enough straw...

It's absolutely laughable to try and spin the "burden" of being in charge of another as being in any way comparable to the assumption of another adult's submission to your inherently superior authority. The unblinking arrogance of that thought process is staggering. It puts me in mind of old colonial soldiers whinging about the burden of civilising the conquered locals, as if that's somehow the worst part of the transaction.

How selfless indeed this Christian love.

I think at this stage you are explaining colour to blind men.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else.

You haven't said anything to Jill to contradict her reading of this passage. All you have done is explain that actually it isn't as bad as she thinks it would be because the husband has to love his wife. But that just shows you are not following Jill's objection.

It is nothing to do with how the husband treats the wife once they enter into this power dynamic (any more than the objection to slavery is about how masters treat their slaves, but rather the notion of slavery itself). The power dynamic itself is wrong, the concept of the woman submitting to the husband as the head of the family is itself wrong. It is not once she submits if the husband then mistreats her it is wrong.

Jill, like most people I would imagine, is not all that bully about the idea of submitting to anyone, irrespective of how well she is treated once she enters into that state of submission, and she finds the concept of a marriage based around the idea that one person submits to the authority and leadership of another ridiculous, irrespective of how well the leader (ie man) proceeds to treat her after that submission.

Do you really not get that point?

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

You haven't said anything to Jill to contradict her reading of this passage. All you have done is explain that actually it isn't as bad as she thinks it would be because the husband has to love his wife. But that just shows you are not following Jill's objection.

It is nothing to do with how the husband treats the wife once they enter into this power dynamic (any more than the objection to slavery is about how masters treat their slaves, but rather the notion of slavery itself). The power dynamic itself is wrong, the concept of the woman submitting to the husband as the head of the family is itself wrong. It is not once she submits if the husband then mistreats her it is wrong.

Jill, like most people I would imagine, is not all that bully about the idea of submitting to anyone, irrespective of how well she is treated once she enters into that state of submission, and she finds the concept of a marriage based around the idea that one person submits to the authority and leadership of another ridiculous, irrespective of how well the leader (ie man) proceeds to treat her after that submission.

Do you really not get that point?

Did you miss this part of the post? I.E Yes, I get that point.

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.

The issue is all the little sarcasms that actually have no basis in the reality of the scenario. Jill, and yourself, merely take something in isolation, and play the drama queen with it, and don't seem to be interested in the actual reality of what the Christian marriage dynamic is when all is taken into account.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

I think at this stage you are explaining colour to blind men.

If thats the case, at least we have the excuse of blindness. You seem to be willfully wearing the blindfold just refusing to take it off

Gumbi

JimiTime wrote: »

Did you miss this part of the post? I.E Yes, I get that point.

I think its that you have simply hung onto this without teasing out what it actually means in the context of everything else. You will still probably be disgusted at the concept of a man being the head of the household, but you present this tyrannical bosslike situation, which shows you don't understand what the marriage or indeed Love is. Or at the very least, you don't care what it means, as you simply can't get past the IDEA of a husband being the head of a household.

The issue is all the little sarcasms that actually have no basis in the reality of the scenario. Jill, and yourself, merely take something in isolation, and play the drama queen with it, and don't seem to be interested in the actual reality of what the Christian marriage dynamic is when all is taken into account.

If you actually read his comment, you will see that he clearly stated that the "tyrannical situation" is not what he is referring to. He is referring only to the concept of someone being the head of the household for no other reason than being a male.

Tell me why it is a good idea that the male should be the head of the household.