Tag Archives: submission

• 3 Comments

•

From "The Gender Blog"

The article is mostly good, but when the whopper comes...

Misconception #4: Submission is a right-a husband has the right to demand his wife's submission.

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice-her responsibility... it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It's his responsibility to be affectionate. It's her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband's responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church-not to make his wife submit.

My thought is that a Christian man, who has married a woman who claims to be a Christian, has the right to expect her to act like one.  That includes being a submissive wife.

If he has not rights, then he is effectively in a hostage situation.  Not a pleasant place.

 

She is to "submit herself"- deciding when and how to submit is her call.

Agreed.

The "when" is when she says "I do" on the altar.

The "how" is "as unto the Lord."

Anything other than that is disobedience to the Law of Christ, Scripture and love.  It saddens me to see Kassian teach so.

 

 

 

• 8 Comments

•

Why do I believe "wives, submit to your husbands as unto the Lord..." and stop?  Because I'm reading my own mail.

My submission to my husband (when he was alive) did not depend on him loving me as the Christ loves the church.  Reading my own mail, I see my role.

Did I confront him?  Yes.  Did I enlist the help of the pastor?  Yes.  Did I pray?  Yes.

Did that stop me from submitting?  No.

God's Word to me is still God's Word, whether nor not somebody else obeys their Word.

I remember a great turning point in my Christian walk - the day I realized that my walk with God did not depend upon my husband's walk with God.

Could I follow his lead when he provided it?  Absolutely.  I can follow my pastor's lead, but my walk is still my responsibility.

Does being my own responsibility relieve me from submission?  Not at all, rather my submission is a part of my own responsibility.

Read my own mail.

That is why I seldom write about a man's part in a marriage.  It largely does not concern me - When I write "God-stuff", it is about what things are beginning to mean to me.  Yes, I recognize the command to men and believe that a marriage requires that a husband love his wife as Christ loves the church.

But that is reading HIS mail.  I know what to look for, but in my search to grow myself, I read my own mail;  thus, most of my writing on marriage and love relationships is written from a woman's perspective, toward a woman's "mail."

I feel absolutely NO obligation (zero) to instruct men.  I'm not a man, I don't face their challenges.  It's not my mail.

• 33 Comments

•

And a plea for logical thinking.

The bottom line (one) is:  Is Scripture sufficient?

The bottom line (two) is:  Is Scripture trustworthy?

The text for our Palm Sunday was one that I had not heard preached on Palm Sunday - Acts 14.

(3)So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel.

(...)

(19)But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

When the truth is preached, people respond. Paul consistently preached the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Here is Acts 16:

(19)But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers. And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, "These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice." The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

Paul was a man who preached the truth. Every chance he got, he preached the truth. He was beaten, imprisoned, threatened with death, beaten more, imprisoned more, threatened more.

And still he preached the truth.

He knew that he was going to be martyred

2 Tim. 4:6For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Peter watched James be martyred by Herod.

Acts 12:1 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also.

and Peter watched. Peter was also threatened and imprisoned.

So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church. Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison.

We read of Paul being beaten, imprisoned, beaten more, threatened with death.

We read of Peter being imprisoned after watching James be martyred.

And yet they continued to preach the gospel...even under the threat of death...and the eventually DID die for the gospel; one was beheaded, the other crucified.

And yet...these are the same men who wrote PRIVATE letters to congregations and wrote

(1 Peter 3) Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands (...) Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

and

(Col. 3:18) Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.

These are men who suffered and died to preach the truth of the gospel. And yet, in private letters to congregations, we see not one specific instruction to (specifically) husbands to (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about what the authorities would say?

It would seem that men who were willing to die for the truth would be willing to write to congregations in private letters what they were really wanted to teach.

We have the same man who wrote that we ought to obey God rather than man...pandered to the culture and neglected to write that (in the face of impending martyrdom for the truth) (specifically) husbands should (specifically) submit to (specifically) their wives...because they were concerned about the authorities.

These are questions that egalitarians don't appear to like...at least I've asked it a number of times and I don't recall seeing it addressed when I've asked it.

1) Why would the same Pater who said, "We must obey God rather than men!" have obeyed the culture of those same men when teaching the truth of God concerning the submission of husbands to wives?

2) Why would the same Paul who was beaten, imprisoned, and martyred for preaching truth of God in the face of governmental persecution - why would this Paul have neglected a teaching about relationships between husbands and wives out of concern for what the governmental authorities might think?
3) If we believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and are "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work"...why did "inspired" Scripture leave out this teaching (unless it isn't really a teaching)?

4) If Paul wrote what God breathed out, why was GOD pandering to the culture?

5) Paul preached Christ crucified (the equivalent of us teaching to follow a common criminal executed by hanging) - why would he have been concerned about what culture thought...when preaching such an UNcultural truth?
NOTE ON COMMENTS: stick to the specific questions or comments will be closed.

Back to the bottom lines:

(one) Is Scripture sufficient?  Or does it leave us on a "trajectory"?

(two) Is Scripture trustworthy?  Or does it leave out specific instructions in order to pander to culture?

•

organization of the "week"

 

Each year millions of people participate in VSA arts programs through a nationwide network of affiliates and in more than 60 countries around the world.

VSA arts programming and initiatives are guided by four essential principles:

 

  • Every young person with a disability deserves access to high quality arts learning experiences.
  • All artists in schools and art educators should be prepared to include students with disabilities in their instruction.
  • All children, youth, and adults with disabilities should have complete access to cultural facilities and activities.
  • All individuals with disabilities who aspire to careers in the arts should have the opportunity to develop appropriate skills.

 

 

Inclusion teaches us that all means all. Everybody. No exceptions. The arts invite people to leave familiar territory, to explore new answers and seek new questions. The arts offer a means to self-expression, communication, and independence. By learning through the arts, students become lifelong learners, experiencing the joy of discovery and exploration, and the value of each other's ideas.

VSA arts is committed to driving change - changing perceptions and practice, classroom by classroom, community by community, and ultimately society.

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

From "Ask the Pastor"

Therefore, whether or not “obey” appears in the vows, a devout Christian wife desires to do everything according to her husband’s will. In this, she models the Church’s submission to her Bridegroom. Meanwhile, even as he heads the household, the believing husband still places all of his wife’s needs ahead of his own and gives her no cause to rebel against his decisions, whether or not she has promised to obey him, because his love for her is absolute.

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

•

On this Sunday we look forward to Holy Week; the week in which Christ's earthly ministry comes to its peak in His submission to His Father in the role of redemption.

It was Christ, in His submission, who leads us to eternity.

If we look to the Trinity as an example of submission and authority, we see that there is absolute equality, absolute love, absolute "sent-ness", absolute submission, absolute unity in purpose.

Christ's submission to the Father in no way interfered with His submission to authorities, with His submission to the needs of His followers, with His submission to the sheep He came to find.

And yet, Christ is the ultimate leader...Prince of Peace.

• 14 Comments

•

From Complegalitarian:

So if the relationship is sour, it *must* be because she's not acknowledging his leadership well enough. If she agrees with everything he says and complies in every single way, then there won't be any problems, now will there?

(No problems, but not much of a REAL relationship to speak of, either)... 🙁

I see that particular emphasis as being abusive in and of itself, even if the guy does not resort to physical violence, the emotional violence done to a woman in that kind of a "relationship" is enormous. In effect she ceases to exist.

I guess I would need to ask what "kind of 'relationship'" is being referred to?  Complementarian?  If it is complementarian marriages in general, it becomes more difficult to believe that egalitarians do not see all complementarian men in general are abusive.

If there is a different "kind of 'relationship'" being referred to, it would be helpful to know exactly what is being referred to?

I do have a few thoughts on "ceasing to exist".

Do we "cease to exist" when we are in Christ?  (Since Scripture refers multiple times in both New and Old Testaments as God / Christ relating to His peoples as husband and wife, it's a reasonable thing to do).

Is God / Christ being abusive when He gives us His commandments?

ALSO:  is dying to one's self necessarily a bad thing?  If the giving up on one's self leads to a greater tie of "one-flesh", why is that bad?  Especially since BOTH parties may be required to do exactly that.