Does a Marital Partnership Preclude Husband and Wife Becoming One? - Page 2

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

Right. No, dh is not literally my head. Funny thought.

There is an element of "mystery" to it though. What is presented is a spiritual matter and I have difficulty explaining it in terms that I or anyone else can understand. It's more than just a partnership or even a union. But I don't know how to explain it.

In the sacramental churches, this marriage is understood to be a sacrament - others include the Eucharist or baptism. They are always considered a mystery - we do not know how they work, and in many cases they seem to be reconsiling ireconcilable things (like two becoming one, or a thing remaining itself and also becoming something else, etc.)

A sacrament is usually defined as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace". So there is always something real and objective that God does, even though it is invisible to us. In marriage we say that the two, in some mystical way, become one flesh, while at the same time retaining their individuality. Just like in the Church, we are grafted into Christ and become one with him in a mystical sense through baptism, but still maintain our individuality.

[zinemama]

Oh, I understand the Christ: Church = Husband: Wife analogy. I never thought Christians believe a husband was literally the wife's head! What threw me was this statement

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

To me, becoming one with my husband is about thinking of him as a part of my own body, and filling the needs of my husband and children simultaneously with filling my own needs. Along these lines, I also think mutual submission plays a big part in becoming one.

That sounded strangely literal to me.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Oh, I understand the Christ: Church = Husband: Wife analogy. I never thought Christians believe a husband was literally the wife's head! What threw me was this statement

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama
"To me, becoming one with my husband is about thinking of him as a part of my own body, and filling the needs of my husband and children simultaneously with filling my own needs. Along these lines, I also think mutual submission plays a big part in becoming one."


That sounded strangely literal to me.

(I modified how my quote was inserted in here since I don't know how else to do a quote within a quote.)

I'm sorry for the confusion I've created! I assure you that dh and I aren't going throughout the day and night attached at the elbow or hip or anything!

We are, of course, physically connected at times. Maybe I should explain that I believe all life on earth is interconnected, only many people feel alone and isolated because we've become largely desensitized to the reality of this connection.

And some lives are interconnected to a much greater and more intensive degree. Maybe I can explain using the analogy of bath towels. I wouldn't feel comfortable at all sharing a bath towel with a friend or acquaintance, but I think nothing at all of sharing a bath towel with dh.

I'm also willing to share with my dd's -- but I'd only share in the sense of using the towel after they had used it; I wouldn't want them to use it after dh or I had used it because I feel like we might have some adult germs that we're not even aware of, while they're just starting their lives and don't need to get exposed to something so early on.

So...not to gross anyone out, but I feel like dh and I are really, really one flesh in the sense that we totally share most or all germs. I'm willing to take in whatever germs our dd's may have, but I'm not willing to expose them to each and every germ that I might have. And with others, I'm perfectly willing to share drinks from the same cup but I don't want to dry off with their towels, and I don't imagine that they'd want to dry off with mine.

Of course, this is a rather physical focus whereas I see the truly important aspect of dh's and my oneness as being our willingness to love and care for one another to the same degree that we love and care for ourselves.

I hope this is clear enough, and not too yucky to contemplate.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

So, maybe the husband-as-head thing in Ephesians was more of a "gateway" drug, intended to ease people of that culture and time period into full-blown equality and mutual submission in marriage?

If you really read this reading, full blown equality and mutual submission IS what is being asked. Sameness or interchangeability is not.

From Ephesians 5:

21: Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

If that doesn't sound like asking for mutual submission, I don't know what does. Then Paul goes on to explain to women and men individually how to be subordinate to one another:

22: Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
23: For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.
24: As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

As Shami pointed out, this is something for women to give freely to their husbands, never something for husbands to demand from their wives. It sounds really rough to our modernist feminist ears, but in reality, it is a very beautiful thing. How do we subordinate ourselves to Christ? We spend time with him in prayer. We seek to know what he desires of us and do it out of love. Are we afraid of subordinating ourselves to Christ? Should we be afraid of subordinating ourselves to our husbands? Are we doing our part in the mutual submission if we do not?

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her
26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
27 that he might present himself to the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
28 So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes it and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church.
30 because we are all members of his body.

When we look at the example of how Christ loves the church, we see that he took the place of the lowest servant, washing the feet of his disciples. In this, Paul gives husbands no permission to reign over their wives, but rather to love as Christ loves, and Christ loved by subordinating himself to us, his church.

This IS mutual submission! As it plays out, there should not be one person in charge and the other blindly following. Like Shami, I try to give my husband the final say, but he would never make a decision I couldn't live with. In fact, this power of final say that I give him often benefits me most of all because in coming to a decision, his objective is to meet my needs most of all, so his final decision tends to put my needs ahead of his. Who is in charge then?

I worry less about this idea of head vs. body in terms of value from an outside perspective. I think that it is helpful for wives to think of their husbands as their heads in order to submit to them, and I think that it is helpful for husbands to think of their wives as their own body in order to submit to them. I do not think that it is helpful for husbands to think of themselves as the head over their wives or for wives to think of themselves as the body manipulated by their husbands. That is not what Paul is talking about at all. He's just telling wives how to treat their husbands and husbands how to treat their wives.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by JMJ

I think that it is helpful for wives to think of their husbands as their heads in order to submit to them, and I think that it is helpful for husbands to think of their wives as their own body in order to submit to them.

I really like the way that you put this here. No hierarchy, just two different approaches, feminine and masculine, leading to an end result of mutual submission on each side.

I guess what trips me up is that I still see the brain as the controlling organ, so it still seems kind of like a hierarchy to me, but I'm going to try to be more open to reading these Scriptures in the way that you've described them.

The following article has some interesting things to say about the meaning of the verses in Ephesians, including that these were instructions for helping Christian families to avoid offending those in the patriarchal cultures among which they were living.

http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/10...adship-part-3/

[JMJ]

I've been thinking a lot about this over the past few days. I'm not sure I agree with this article. It seems to be an attempt to write off the command to wives to submit to their husbands. Really, I think that this is a very important issue. There has been great debate among Christians over whether or not wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, and I really do not understand why. The Bible very clearly states that wives should submit to their husbands. A wife should place her husband ahead of herself and seek to do what he desires. This is what is required for it to be true submission. Arguing that she is his equal and that their marriage should be "fair" and perhaps even "egalitarian" does not count as submission.

What people often miss is that the Bible also states that husbands should submit to their wives. Perhaps, from the outside, it could look like the husband is a leader to his wife, but he should be like no leader we know... except Christ. We think of leaders as being better and smarter and more capable. We see them doing what they want and controlling other people, creating rules and administering punishments. We seek promotions in our work to progress to higher pay, more prestige, and more control, with more people working under us. We really need to redefine leadership.

Christ never controlled anyone. Christ took the place of the lowest servant and layed down his life for his bride, the Church. He submitted to us even as we killed him (not to say that anyone should put up with this from their spouse, just to show the depth of Christ's submission). Rather than taking away our free will, Christ increased our freedom by opening the gates of heaven. He meets our needs and never acts out of selfishness, but only in our own interests. He listens to our prayers, and if we keep the lines of communication, we may see that he has fulfilled our desires or we may come to understand that he has a better plan.

I really feel like true submission is becoming a lost virtue, for both husbands and wives. Husbands have historically abused the submission of their wives, accepting their submission and enjoying the power that is given to them without in turn submitting to their wives. Actually, the husband should be the first to give his love to his wife, just as God loved us into creation. We want to focus on our equality, but for it to be submission, we really have to place the other ahead of ourselves. Marriage isn't about equality. It should be so beautifully unequal that both sides appear to have gotten the better deal.

[mammal_mama]

JMJ, maybe people have such a hard time with this because there's generally a focus on "wifely" submission, when it really should be husbandly submission and wifely submission.

I suppose that the only reason there's more of a focus on "wifely" stuff is because women are generally the ones most interested in reading about and discussing marriage. Or at least that's what I hear, and I definitely spend more time thinking/talking about all this than dh does.

[Shami]

Originally Posted by JMJ

I've been thinking a lot about this over the past few days. I'm not sure I agree with this article. It seems to be an attempt to write off the command to wives to submit to their husbands. Really, I think that this is a very important issue. There has been great debate among Christians over whether or not wives are supposed to submit to their husbands, and I really do not understand why. The Bible very clearly states that wives should submit to their husbands. A wife should place her husband ahead of herself and seek to do what he desires. This is what is required for it to be true submission. Arguing that she is his equal and that their marriage should be "fair" and perhaps even "egalitarian" does not count as submission.
snip
.

I think it's culture and the fact the the days are getting more and more dark. As this age gets darker and darker the church should be shining as a bright lampstand.
It's the same with lots of social issues, such as divorce, living together unmarried, children out of wedlock, and the feminist movement which was good in some ways (I'm just speaking about the USA). I am really glad that women were active in seeking to vote and to get equal pay. I wouldn't give that up. However, that movement had a great impact on families, both positively and negatively.
The enemy is seeking to destroy families in any way he can. One way is that he caused women to feel that they don't need a man to have a family. Or some women feel superior to their husbands. Once this happens then the headship is effected.
When I first became a believer and I saw these verses about headship, i was really bothered. I went to this family that I trusted and they helped me work through it. Eventually, I felt really relieved that there is supposed to be order in this universe. There is God's governmental arrangement. According to the verses, God is the Head of Christ, Christ is the Head of man, and man is the head of woman. Once the Lord unveiled me to see that this is actually a sweet arrangement and a covering for the woman, I was really relieved. I have always felt like my universe and The Universe was kind of upside down. Anybody else ever feel like things in the universe just aren't 'right'? Once I saw the order that God really intended, I felt like I got put right side up.

I also felt covered in a safe way, like and umbrella covers me. I used to feel like it's me against the world...bring it on...I can take what ever you throw at me...I don't need anybody else! That was my facade. Now I feel so much comfort in knowing that my husband and I are in this together and he is my covering, my head. I can be at peace to know that I can follow him.
Just as a side note before I get flamed for mentioning all of the above social issues, I was involved in all of those. I am not someone who is judging anyone. I am just stating some cultural facts of real life in the USA as I see it. Culture has a huge negative impact on the church, IMHO.

[JMJ]

JMJ, maybe people have such a hard time with this because there's generally a focus on "wifely" submission, when it really should be husbandly submission and wifely submission.

I suppose that the only reason there's more of a focus on "wifely" stuff is because women are generally the ones most interested in reading about and discussing marriage. Or at least that's what I hear, and I definitely spend more time thinking/talking about all this than dh does.

Absolutely! I'm sure there are a number of reasons. I've heard that women are more likely to see fault in themselves while men are more likely to see fault in other people, so I'm sure that doesn't help. Also, our historical patriarchal societies have put a focus on men's power over women. Many men perpetuate this as well. I have a friend who is getting divorced right now over this very issue. Their Christian pastor told her husband that he should be demanding her submission and testing her, and in his eyes, she failed over and over again. At the same time, he felt no need to submit to her even enough to be honest with her about financial matters, and now they've both lost.

Thanks for the discussion. It's given me a lot to think about and made for some great prayer times the past few days.

[zinemama]

For those who believe that man is the "head" of woman, how do you see this playing out - or should it play out - for women who are unmarried? Or is does this headship and submission dynamic only apply to married couples?

[Shami]

Originally Posted by zinemama

For those who believe that man is the "head" of woman, how do you see this playing out - or should it play out - for women who are unmarried? Or is does this headship and submission dynamic only apply to married couples?

At the root of this principle is the fact the we, both husband and wife, are submitting to God first. By submitting to God and to Christ we are allowing God to be the arranger of all things in our life, whether it seems good or bad. When I was unmarried, I considered the elders in my local church to be in place of a husband. Now as husband and wife, we both subject our self to the elders.

But, our elders do not lord it over us. Rather, they view themselves as slaves to Christ and to the Body. It is not like in the world when a person achieves a higher position then they are looked upon as someone higher than others. Christ was made to be in a lowly state and this is how our elders see themselves. We view our elders as brothers who have grown in Christ to a maturity, which is how they became elders. By the growth in the divine life they became mature and now they function in the Body as elders.

I view Christ as my Head no matter married or unmarried. Once I began to see how the Body of Christ is an organism, not an organization, I realized that all the members of the Body must be subject to the Head. All the members of the Body function according to their measure. The pinky finger cannot do what the liver does, but both are needed to function in the measure that was given to them. So, that is the spiritual relationship between Christ and His Body.

It is very organic. I function in the Body of Christ according to my measure. I could never be a brother speaking a message at a conference and likewise a brother could never nurse a sick child, care for a friend, and cook dinner for 12 people all at once. It's all according to our measure. Our measure is given by God Himself.

I just realized I am not answering your question directly.
Whether married or unmarried all Christians are subject/subordinate/submit to Christ our Head. That's the short answer.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by zinemama

For those who believe that man is the "head" of woman, how do you see this playing out - or should it play out - for women who are unmarried? Or is does this headship and submission dynamic only apply to married couples?

As Christians, we are called to be the bride of Christ. There are numerous places in the Bible that speak of heaven using the analogy of a wedding feast and speak of Christ's passionate love for us. This is our eternal destiny.

Earthly Christian marriage is primarily meant to help us to understand and reach the heavenly marriage. A Christian couple uses their understanding of their relationship with God in order to love and serve each other, and they use the experience of their relationship to help them to better love and serve God. Their relationship also serves as an example to the unmarried so that married and unmarried alike can reach a better understanding of our heavenly calling.

Unmarried people are not freed from the call to submission. God will certainly provide people to submit to and serve. A man or woman who is not yet married (or pursued another vocation) should practice submission to authorities such as parents, church leadership, and employers as well as submission to people they have power over such as people who work under them, children, the sick, the poor, and the elderly.

Some people are called to remain unmarried, and others find after the death of a spouse that their marriage has given them all the understanding that God was calling them to find in marriage, and they do not feel called to pursue marriage again. These people are called in one way or another to give themselves as the bride of Christ and to serve his church. While a married person has to work to please both God and spouse, an unmarried person is more free in some ways to love and serve God with more singular devotion. In a way, an unmarried person can better explore what it is to be the bride of Christ here and now.

As I said earlier, married people use their experiences working out things in their relationship to help both married and unmarried people to better understand their relationship with God. Similarly, the lives of people pursuing a vocation to celibacy, to give themselves singularly to God, also use those experiences as an example for others to better understand our calling to heavenly marriage with Christ and helps married couples to understand better how to love one another. People who are called to different vocations each have something beautiful to offer the church, and we need them both.

Women who are called to remain unmarried are called to live out their femininity by working to become the spotless bride of Christ. Their lives are a beautiful example to the whole church of what we are all called to in heaven. They try to submit themselves fully to Christ and to his church, to live their whole lives in selflessness.

Men who are called to remain unmarried are called to live out their masculinity by working to become an excellent representative of Christ to the church. These men are a gift from God, given to the whole church. They help us to understand the love that God has for us by living lives of love and submission to the people of God.

Again, it is not that one gender or vocation is better than another. It is that masculinity and femininity, marital chastity and celibacy, are different ways that God calls us to be human. The church needs all in order to have the most complete understanding of God and his love for us.

[mammal_mama]

I'm realizing that the word "submission" isn't as relevant to me as it was in the past. I used to be more dualistic in my beliefs and to feel like my flesh was at war with my spirit and with God's Holy Spirit within me.

Now that I'm realizing that oneness and interconnectivity with all living things is the reality, and individual separateness is the lie, I no longer feel like this war is continually playing itself out inside me.

Yes, there may be times when I want to do one thing and the needs of my family are telling me I need to do something else for the moment -- but, ultimately, since I want to experience ever-deepening interconnectedness with my family, it's not like I'm really "crucifying my flesh" in order to care for the needs of the man that I'm one with or the children that have been born out of our oneness.

I'm just choosing to put community ahead of ego.

It's also a matter of sequencing, since those other things I want to do aren't evil; they're just not as urgent as the need right in front of me. So I invest in the interconnectedness and, in good time, everything that "should" happen in my life has a chance to happen.

So it's not really that I see other people's desires as more important than my own; I just recognize that some needs are more urgent than others, and I realize that when I chose to make a covenant with my husband and bring new lives into the world, I chose to sometimes have to get up a little earlier than I'd like or cut that conversation a little shorter than I would have before I had kids.

I honestly don't see it, though, as a choice to submit or subject myself to anyone -- it's simply an investment of love that I choose to make. Maybe it's just that the word "submission" has so many negative connotations. We don't think of the CEO of a company as being "submissive" when she chooses to shorten her lunch break in order to help resolve an internal company conflict. She's simply investing her time in a job that matters to her.

And, again, I think the word "submission" has a lot of negative connotations because of how it's been falsely associated with wives to the exclusion of husbands. But I guess that's because most men wouldn't join a thread for "husbandly submission." Generally speaking, women are the ones having these discussions so that's why wifely submission has become more of a focus than husbandly submission.

[Kidzaplenty]