Retha

…”The biblical ideal is loving, humble headship and joyful, intelligent submission.” – Wayne Grudem

When submission has the meaning Grudem defines, what is the difference between stupid submission and intelligent submission? Is it:

Stupid submission – “Hubby said it, so I do it.”

Intelligent submission – “Hubby said it, I know it is stupid, but I do it.”

For that matter, what is the difference, if headship mean what Grudem say it does, between humble headship and proud headship? Is it:

Proud headship – “Because I said so. That is why.”

Humble headship – “God made me no smarter than you, and I don’t even know if my way is God’s way in this. But he made me the head. That’s why.”

Frank, I know you could get a patent (or is it a trade mark) on your name, so that no other could use it. If you have a common name like John Smith you probably could not get it on your name alone, but you could geta trade mark on a business or site name.

Cheryl, this is terrible. The worst, to me, is how someone like this could lie and decieve, and still believe they are doing God’s work by keeping women out of ministry.

Regardless of where someone stands on women in ministry, lying and fraudulently pretending to be someone else is not of Christ.

Cheryl, about women having to marry their rapists: I think to be cared for is half the answer. But some other points probably are:
Compare to Exodus 22:16-17: A girl’s family could also decide not to force him to marriage, but to pay money for providing for her. (Some commenter’s say this money was the price of a house.)
He may not divorce, nothing said of what she may and may not do. Does this imply that even if she chooses to live somewhere else, he still has to provide and keep up all his responsibilities?

The original Hebrew word tabas is not the term for rape used in :25, and not all believe it refers to rape.
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/sunday-study-does-the-bible-teach-that-a-rape-victim-has-to-marry-her-rapist.html

About double as long uncleanness for female babies: Mara, that is also the impression my heart got when I asked that question of the Lord, with no influence from books or other Christians – double as much bonding time in a patriarchal culture.

Cheryl, you say Christ is a name for God-in-the-flesh Jesus. You also subscribe to head meaning source.
How, then, should we understand 1 Cor 11:3. “the head (source) of every man is Christ.”
Because Christ is then not the source in the sense of creating at the beginning. Christ, then, was not there at the beginning.

NN
(Minor point, meaning of Baali: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1180&t=KJV Baali = “my lord”
1) a deity in the northern kingdom, variation of the name ‘Baal’)

You say: “So, I appreciate your arguments, I recognize the weight of psychological journals you have on your side. But I for myself am going to have to go with the Scriptures as the revealed word of God on this one.”
No, scripture is not on your side. Your interpretation is on your side. Scripture don’t say selfish in the text. And scripture clearly, in several ways, show the submission is not what you think it is, as I pointed out from scripture. What is more, I already showed that I love scripture about fighting sin and helping people out of it too, scripture you still choose not to discuss because it does not fit in with your one-sided ignore-the-rest-of-scripture argument. Your way of characterizing disagreement with your understanding as disagreement with scripture tells a lot about you, and it isn’t good…

1, I looked up Baali, and it does not, as you claim, have a primary meaning of husband.
Strong’s Hebrew lexicon: my master; Baali, a symbolical name of Jehovah
Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions: “my lord” 1. a deity in the northern kingdom, variation of the name ‘Baal’
2, Your use of Peter 3: Substitution of terms invalidates your argument. You ask if she should submit to a selfish jerk. Then you use a verse that say she should submit to an unbeliever (we agree it refers to an unbeliever). Unbeliever does not equal selfish jerk.
The slightest knowledge of human nature would tell you the verse does not speak about obeying a selfish man. The verse speaks of someone motivated to change by submission. A selfish person does not change because his selfishness is rewarded.
(That is one clue that submission don’t mean obeying selfish whims. Here is another, that to submit you don’t have to obey every order, even when direct sin is not present: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/%e2%80%9cwives-submit-%e2%80%9d-how/ )
3, You claim “A sandwich will typically not violate the Word of God – even if the husband ought to have recognized how busy his wife was and not asked her.” :
The man does violate the word by the sandwich order: The word say that to love others as ourselves, to regard their interests as highly (at least) as our own. This, not submission to husbands, is one of the two great commandments. If you say he don’t violate the word, don’t you care about the simplest and first things of scripture? You see, some things in scripture is bigger than submission – Jesus himself call them bigger.
And the wife? The Bible say we should edify, exhort and admonish our fellow believers, and to fight against sin, not encourage it. If the wife is married to a fellow believer, why does this not apply to her? You chooce to put a higher premium on submit than on other things the Bible say, without even mentioning why these Bible texts are less important to you.
4, You think because God use marriage as metaphor, she should picture the gospel one-sidedly with her behavior:
The Bible never say she can or should show the gospel by submitting. 1 Peter 3:1 say she may win one unbeliever, but not that she picture the gospel. The supplying leader can present a big part of the gospel this way (Hosea was specifically told to do it) but we don’t hear in the Bible of female Hoseas playing the other role- probably because she cannot present a true gospel to the world this way.

When we read the Bible, we should follow it whole-heartedly, not add meanings (my points 1, 2 and 4) and remember only what we like (point 3)

NN, you say people should reflect the gospel in their marriages? For the sake of this argument, I’ll assume you are right about that.

By that view, if a wife responds to a simple selfish demand (For example, “Make me a sandwich, now”, when both are equally busy with something else) it shows the world that Christ is selfish and we Christians are just giving in to God’s egotism. When, as patriarchal teachers recommend, a wife submits to the point of death to an abusive husband and don’t ask the help of the police, they teach a gospel, according to you. That gospel would be: Christ destroys your life, and Christians are really suckers for punishment to listen to him when they could be saved from this tyrant.

Would, you agree that, to reflect the gospel, women have to respond to good things the man gives? When he don’t give good things, she cannot respond as to Christ? Because the gospel include that we love Christ because He first loved us, that we know that what He asks now is right and wise, and therefore we can do it.

For that reason, I believe wifes who submit in areas where husbands are wrong or selfish, are presenting a distorted gospel. She should rather help him to overcome his flaws, as his helpmeet.

Waneta said: “wives would again return to submitting the same way they submit to gravity–it just is.”
I’m just making double sure you understand what is said here: This “being subject” is not a complementarian doctrine. It is not something that some wives do, and bossy wives don’t. It’s not something you can stop, even temporarily, by saying: “This servant husband with the new heart is strange, I don’t know if it should be like this.”

It is the simple fact that his actions have an influence on you. If you are happier when he notices your new hairdo than when he doesn’t, it is evidence of this “being subject”. If your household is happier when he is in a good mood, it is evidence of “being subject”. Bossy wives are as much subject as meek wives with bossy husbands.

She cannot return to it. By reacting to his changing behavior, she is already showing the truth of her being subject to it. There is no ought, no command, no expectation of her, in this “being subject.” There is nothing that she is supposed to be doing. She is subject in everything – everything he do or say affect her. If he changes and become a better person, she will bloom under this influence. If he is hell to live with, she will wither under this effect he has on her. Blooming and withering are both evidence of the influence he has.

Waneta, perhaps you can read Charis ( http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/ ) on the topic of submitting in everything. She say the tenses are translated wrong from Greek, the message is: Wifes are subject to their husbands in everything.

That is not a command, say Charis, but more like being subject to gravity. It is a statement that your man have an influence on you, wether good or bad.

“Titus 2:5 (NAS) to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
Can this verse be turned against complementarians?
In the ancient near east of the time, the culture was such that the word of God would have been dishonored by the unbelievers if women did not subject. (“See those Christians? They don’t allow the man his proper place! Christianity is bad for society!” – thinkers of the time period.)
But in the current world, the word of God is being dishonored because of complimentarians! (“See those Christians? They don’t allow the woman her proper place! Christianity is bad for society!” – today’s critics.)
It seems that “so that the word of God will not be dishonored” is the real biblical principle of the verse, and the first part about a method to achieve the goal. And in the interest of not dishonoring His word, we should show the “neither male nor female” aspect in marriages.
Could it be that complimentarians miss the principle in Titus 2:5?

I’d love to read what you wrote, Cheryl, but the thread with the much reaction isn’t accessible at all to me. I believe I am not the only potential reader with that problem.

I suggest you re-post your piece to inform even us who struggle to open it. In your re-posting, you can close comments, and then direct us with links to the current comment page and the previous ones, and tell us to use this for comments.