# Submission



## puritangirl

I don't know if there is another thread for this question, if so, just direct me.

Question: If a husband asks his wife to dance down the street singing at the top of her lungs, must she do it? Is she in sin if she refuses? He is not asking her to sin, though he himself is in sin for lording his authority over her.

What do you think?


----------



## wsw201

God commands men to love their wives, which to me means not asking them to do stupid things like dancing down the street singing at the top of her lungs. And no, it would not be a sin to refuse.


----------



## puritangirl

If it is not sin to refuse, then where do we draw the line? When is it okay to submit and when is it not okay to submit? Whenever the wife thinks the husband is in sin? 

For example, lets say a husband asks his wife to wear a headcovering. She thinks its ridiculous, cultural, etc. They study it together. In the end, she thinks that he is just being stubborn by making her wear a headcovering. It would be sin for her not to submit.

A husband may be in sin as a head. Does that make it okay for the wife not to submit? 

Just wondering...


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> God commands men to love their wives, which to me means not asking them to do stupid things like dancing down the street singing at the top of her lungs. And no, it would not be a sin to refuse.



True it might be sinful for the man to ask this of the woman (depending on the circumstances), but why would it not be sin for the woman to obey? Woman are sinful when they do not submit to their husbands, no?

In my humble opinion, the woman should submit at all times, unless it is sinful in the eyes of God, or she is caused to go against her conscience.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> God commands men to love their wives, which to me means not asking them to do stupid things like dancing down the street singing at the top of her lungs. And no, it would not be a sin to refuse.



I agree with this completely. A man asking his wife to do this is clearly a man who is trying to cause embarasement to his wife in some way. I know far, far too many men who try and explout the "submission" thing. 

I know it's turned into a sappy jellyfish saying, but seriously, what would Jesus do?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by puritangirl_
> If it is not sin to refuse, then where do we draw the line? When is it okay to submit and when is it not okay to submit? Whenever the wife thinks the husband is in sin?
> 
> For example, lets say a husband asks his wife to wear a headcovering. She thinks its ridiculous, cultural, etc. They study it together. In the end, she thinks that he is just being stubborn by making her wear a headcovering. It would be sin for her not to submit.
> 
> A husband may be in sin as a head. Does that make it okay for the wife not to submit?
> 
> Just wondering...



Then you should wear to please your husband. And your heart should be in the "this is what is pleasing to my husband...and is not against God", not "this is ridiculous".

I would like to suggest two books to you....The Excellent Wife by Martha Peace and Created To Be His Helpmeet by Debi Pearl. I've read them and they are excellent for this area of your questioning.


----------



## LadyFlynt

BTW, is this (the headcovering) an actual issue between you two?

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Texas Aggie

Adam is right on with husbands going too far.

Husbands love.
Wives submit.
Children obey.

Looks like God knows the difficulty of loving, submitting and obeying for each group.

A husband who loves his wife will not subject her to such ridicule and embarrassment. A husband who exploits this commandment probably does not love his wife. Likewise, the submission of the wife may be directly related to the love given by the husband. 

Refusal to submit per this example is not sin.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I disagree, it is amazing what a wife's submission can do to turn a husband around...even if it takes years.

I have to go grocery shopping now with hubby...have a story for ya when I get back.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> 
> Refusal to submit per this example is not sin.



Why not? Just because the husband is in sin in his asking?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by puritangirl_
> If it is not sin to refuse, then where do we draw the line? When is it okay to submit and when is it not okay to submit? Whenever the wife thinks the husband is in sin?
> 
> For example, lets say a husband asks his wife to wear a headcovering. She thinks its ridiculous, cultural, etc. They study it together. In the end, she thinks that he is just being stubborn by making her wear a headcovering. It would be sin for her not to submit.
> 
> A husband may be in sin as a head. Does that make it okay for the wife not to submit?
> 
> Just wondering...



Hopefully, the husband will attempt to show his wife that wearing a headcovering is biblical. If he can not convince her then forcing her would be forcing her to do something that is not in faith. And what is not done in faith is sin. A husband needs to handle the issue of submission very carefully. He is not to lord it over his wife. That is not what Scripture is requiring. He is to treat his wife as Christ has treated the Church. 

I would say that if the husband continually makes weird demands on his wife and it is causing strife within the family, then it would be time for the Session to step in and try and find out what is going on.


----------



## Texas Aggie

Colleen,
What are you disagreeing with?


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Adam is right on with husbands going too far.
> 
> Husbands love.
> Wives submit.
> Children obey.




Husbands love (as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.)

For husbands, Adam's question, "What would Jesus do?" seems very pertinent. Husbands should demonstrate their love for their wives to reflect how Jesus loved the church, and gave himself for it. Jesus has authority over us, but he doesn't use that authority to see us ridiculed or publicly embarrassed.


----------



## Arch2k

John MacArthur speaks of woman of whom he counseled that said "I'll submit to my husband"¦when he's right!" He goes on to say that this isn't submission at all. This is just agreeing with him. He says that true submission occurs when the wife doesn't agree (again as long as it is not sin for her), but submits to his authority, because it has been placed over her.


----------



## Texas Aggie

Jeff,

Just my perspective with the original example.... I do not see how this can be sin. A husband who "controls" his wife in such a fashion is giving her the appearance of being "out of control." To me this is acceptable grounds for refusal.

In addition, the rule of a husband may also lead to things contrary to the law of God. If the husband is in sin, there is no reason for the wife to partake.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Jeff, do you have a daughter?


----------



## biblelighthouse

1Pet.3
[1] Likewise you wives, *be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,* 
[2] *when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.* 
[3] Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, 
[4] but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 
[5] So once *the holy women* who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and *were submissive to their husbands,* 
[6] *as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. *And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you. 


*I want to commend Colleen *for affirming a very high Biblical standard in this arena! 

On many boards, I would expect to see some of the men pounding on submission, while the women complained and groaned.

But so far, it looks like this board is behaving somewhat in the opposite direction, which is somewhat of a good thing! 

It is definitely good that Colleen recognizes the high calling (and command) given to Christian wives in Scripture. Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 are not unclear. Wives are supposed to submit to their husbands in *everything* (cf. Ephesians 5:24). Scripture does not just tell wives to submit when they want to, or when they decide they think their husband is being "spiritual" enough. That is not their decision to make! Of course, if a husband tells his wife to sin against God, then she must obey God rather than man. But that is the ONLY exception! The same goes for all of us (men included!) in regard to obedience to civil law. If the laws of our country command us to do something, then we are bound to obey. The only exception is when we are told to disobey one of God's commands. The same principle applies in both cases.

Now, while I disagree with some of the men's comments above, I still think there is good to be gleaned. I disagree with their assertion that the wife should not submit in *everything*. But I do agree with their basic attitude: recognizing that it is *wrong* for a husband to lord his position over his wife. She may call her husband "lord" like Sarah did, but the husband has no right to call _himself_ "lord".  The men on this board (including myself) are very sensitive to the sin that the husband is committing in this hypothetical situation. And I think it is this sensitivity that encourages many men to say the woman shouldn't submit. I strongly disagree with their conclusion, on Scriptural grounds, but I strongly agree with their sensitivity of the _husband's_ sin.

Ephesians 5:
[24] As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in *everything* to their husbands. 

Notice that Ephesians 5 makes no exceptions for "singing in the street"! 

Soli Deo Gloria!!!

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Arch2k

Joeseph! Well said.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I'll say this, the day my daughters husband demands she do something embarassing in order to please himself and exert his authority over her is the day he will recieve a visit from me with a clear lesson being sent that this will not happen again.

Like I said, I know too many "supposed' Christian men who act like total fools and treat their wives like complete garbage and know no scripture besides the submissive passages. I know one man who had them highlighten in his bible that he never opened unless it was to those passages!


----------



## wsw201

One of the problems with dealing with hypothetical situations is that there is usually more going on than meets the eye. There are usually underlying issues that need to come to the surface (and I say this from the experience of being on a Session and dealing with situations similar to this).

Based on the situation described, I believe the wife has grounds to refuse. But the husband also has the right to take the issue to the Church, since he will mostlikely think that she is sinning because she did not obey.


----------



## Arch2k

What ground does she have to disobey?

I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"

When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.

Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.


----------



## Texas Aggie

Wife can refuse when the act is contrary to the law of God. It's just that easy.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What ground does she have to disobey?
> 
> I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"
> 
> When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.
> 
> Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.



Well I read it that way. 

As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What ground does she have to disobey?
> 
> I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"
> 
> When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.
> 
> Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I read it that way.
> 
> As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?
Click to expand...


Take the headcovering issue as an example. Even if the wife does not believe she is biblically required to wear one, would it not be _the act of submission itself_ that renders her wearing of it an act done in faith? That is especially true in light of the fact that her wearing it would certainly not be sin, even if she was not in fact biblically commanded to do so. In cases such as these, if the wife's actions only qualify as being done in faith if she fully agrees with them, how is it submission at all? Is not submitting on non-sinful issues an act of faith as well, particularly in God's prescribed principled for marriage?

I know the initially-described situation seems different, and I fully agree that it constitutes irresponsibility on the part of the husband, which should certainly be reported by the wife to the Church, who should in turn correct the husband. But until that goes through, is there a principled difference between her submission in this case and her submission in the headcovering case, in regard to their non-sinfulness and their act-of-faith natures?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What ground does she have to disobey?
> 
> I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"
> 
> When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.
> 
> Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I read it that way.
> 
> As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take the headcovering issue as an example. Even if the wife does not believe she is biblically required to wear one, would it not be _the act of submission itself_ that renders her wearing of it an act done in faith? That is especially true in light of the fact that her wearing it would certainly not be sin, even if she was not in fact biblically commanded to do so. In cases such as these, if the wife's actions only qualify as being done in faith if she fully agrees with them, how is it submission at all? Is not submitting on non-sinful issues an act of faith as well, particularly in God's prescribed principled for marriage?
> 
> I know the initially-described situation seems different, and I fully agree that it constitutes irresponsibility on the part of the husband, which should certainly be reported by the wife to the Church, who should in turn correct the husband. But until that goes through, is there a principled difference between her submission in this case and her submission in the headcovering case, in regard to their non-sinfulness and their act-of-faith natures?
Click to expand...


The point I was making was regarding a mature Christian husband. A mature christain husband would not be asking his wife to do something that was not being done in faith. He would hopefully bring her to an understanding that wearing a headcovering was biblically warranted and though she may still have reservations, she would submit knowing that he has her best interest at heart and is guiding her in a particular biblical truth. I believe this is the ideal situation and her submission would in "in faith" as she trusts her husband.

The issue of authority for a husband should not be "what can I do" but "what I ought to do". As Scripture states to husbands "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7). The idea of "I say, you do" should not be apart of any Christian home.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?




You are missing the point. It is a sin for _him_ to demand it, but it is not a sin for _her_ to obey him. That is the critical distinction.

It is not sinful for her to sing in the street, so she must obey him.


----------



## biblelighthouse

You also need to remember that a husband's spiritual state has _nothing_ to do with a wife's duty to submit to him. 1 Peter 3 makes this very clear. She is supposed to submit to her husband even if he is an unbelieving pagan! So arguing that she doesn't have to submit because he isn't being a top-notch Christian is not a good excuse at all.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point. It is a sin for _him_ to demand it, but it is not a sin for _her_ to obey him. That is the critical distinction.
> 
> It is not sinful for her to sing in the street, so she must obey him.
Click to expand...


I am not missing the point but am making another point regarding a *mature Christian husband.* In the situation that is being discribed, you say she *must* obey him. If she doesn't, is she sinning and subject to discipline by the Church?


----------



## Me Died Blue

to Joseph.



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What ground does she have to disobey?
> 
> I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"
> 
> When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.
> 
> Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I read it that way.
> 
> As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take the headcovering issue as an example. Even if the wife does not believe she is biblically required to wear one, would it not be _the act of submission itself_ that renders her wearing of it an act done in faith? That is especially true in light of the fact that her wearing it would certainly not be sin, even if she was not in fact biblically commanded to do so. In cases such as these, if the wife's actions only qualify as being done in faith if she fully agrees with them, how is it submission at all? Is not submitting on non-sinful issues an act of faith as well, particularly in God's prescribed principled for marriage?
> 
> I know the initially-described situation seems different, and I fully agree that it constitutes irresponsibility on the part of the husband, which should certainly be reported by the wife to the Church, who should in turn correct the husband. But until that goes through, is there a principled difference between her submission in this case and her submission in the headcovering case, in regard to their non-sinfulness and their act-of-faith natures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point I was making was regarding a mature Christian husband. A mature christain husband would not be asking his wife to do something that was not being done in faith. He would hopefully bring her to an understanding that wearing a headcovering was biblically warranted and though she may still have reservations, she would submit knowing that he has her best interest at heart and is guiding her in a particular biblical truth. I believe this is the ideal situation and her submission would in "in faith" as she trusts her husband.
> 
> The issue of authority for a husband should not be "what can I do" but "what I ought to do". As Scripture states to husbands "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7). The idea of "I say, you do" should not be apart of any Christian home.
Click to expand...


I fully agree, Wayne, as I would certainly hope everyone else here would as well. But the question in this thread was about the situation and response from the _wife's_ perspective, not the husband's.

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Texas Aggie

In this example, it is sin for him to demand such disrespect of his wife. It is also sin for her to act like a fool (this is a false witness). Both are in willful disobedience... the one that demands as well as the participant.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What ground does she have to disobey?
> 
> I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"
> 
> When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.
> 
> Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I read it that way.
> 
> As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?
Click to expand...


That depends on what you mean by "done in faith." 

If you mean that she believes it is a sin against God, I have already addressed that and affirmed that a woman must always obey God rather than men in this circumstance.

If you mean that she must do what she believes is best in every circumstance (including all areas of Christian liberty), than I say she has no authority to disobey her husband as she is the head placed above her AS her authority. To say that the woman has the right to disobey in these areas is to make her the head. 

Think of this as a parallel to how we submit to our church leaders. Are we to submit to the session if they ask us to sin? Absolutely not. In areas where sin is not a factor, should we submit to their decisions in everything? Absolutely! If the session thinks it best that we attend counseling, or whatever they decide is best for the flock, as long as it does not disagree with scripture, we have the duty to obey.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> In this example, it is sin for him to demand such disrespect of his wife. It is also sin for her to act like a fool (this is a false witness). Both are in willful disobedience... the one that demands as well as the participant.



I do agree with you that the wife should disobey IF her actions would be sinful.

But can you Scripturally back up your statement? What Bible passage makes it a sin to sing in the street? Your opinion may be that she would be acting "like a fool", but many may disagree. On what Scripture do you base your assertion?

I think many wives probably try to think up *excuses* just like this one, to justify disobedience. The thought process is kind of like this:
"If this is sin, then I can disobey. So, all I have to do is find some way to convince myself that this is sin. . . ." --- And that is not a godly attitude for a wife to have.

If you can Scripturally demonstrate that singing in the street is sinful, then you will have made your case _in this specific instance_. 

But in any case, the overall principle remains unchanged. If a wife can, in any way at all, obey her husband without personally sinning against God, then she is absolutely Scripturally bound to obey her husband. Wives are to submit to their husbands in *everything*, as unto the Lord (Ephesians 5:24).

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> You also need to remember that a husband's spiritual state has _nothing_ to do with a wife's duty to submit to him. 1 Peter 3 makes this very clear. She is supposed to submit to her husband even if he is an unbelieving pagan! So arguing that she doesn't have to submit because he isn't being a top-notch Christian is not a good excuse at all.



We are starting to talk past each other. I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.



But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly _not_ acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> to Joseph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> What ground does she have to disobey?
> 
> I don't see this thread as "should a wife submit if her husband wants her to do something stupid" as much as asking the question "when does the wife have the right to disobey her husband?"
> 
> When? When she is caused to sin. Anything else is merely personal preference, and then she is the acting head.
> 
> Make it fully known, that the balance of the man loving his wife as Christ loves the church is the duty of the husband, and I am not detracting from that in any way. Husbands should lead their families in a Godly way, and glorifying God should be his ultimate purpose in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I read it that way.
> 
> As far as sin is concerned, assuming we are talking about a mature Christian husband, would it not be sin to demand a wife to do something that was not done in faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take the headcovering issue as an example. Even if the wife does not believe she is biblically required to wear one, would it not be _the act of submission itself_ that renders her wearing of it an act done in faith? That is especially true in light of the fact that her wearing it would certainly not be sin, even if she was not in fact biblically commanded to do so. In cases such as these, if the wife's actions only qualify as being done in faith if she fully agrees with them, how is it submission at all? Is not submitting on non-sinful issues an act of faith as well, particularly in God's prescribed principled for marriage?
> 
> I know the initially-described situation seems different, and I fully agree that it constitutes irresponsibility on the part of the husband, which should certainly be reported by the wife to the Church, who should in turn correct the husband. But until that goes through, is there a principled difference between her submission in this case and her submission in the headcovering case, in regard to their non-sinfulness and their act-of-faith natures?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point I was making was regarding a mature Christian husband. A mature christain husband would not be asking his wife to do something that was not being done in faith. He would hopefully bring her to an understanding that wearing a headcovering was biblically warranted and though she may still have reservations, she would submit knowing that he has her best interest at heart and is guiding her in a particular biblical truth. I believe this is the ideal situation and her submission would in "in faith" as she trusts her husband.
> 
> The issue of authority for a husband should not be "what can I do" but "what I ought to do". As Scripture states to husbands "Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7). The idea of "I say, you do" should not be apart of any Christian home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully agree, Wayne, as I would certainly hope everyone else here would as well. But the question in this thread was about the situation and response from the _wife's_ perspective, not the husband's.
> 
> [Edited on 6-24-2005 by Me Died Blue]
Click to expand...


Chris,

The problem is that you can't simply look at a situation in only one perspective. A husband and wife are now "one flesh" you have to consider the situation as a whole. I am not arguing against biblical submission by a wife to her husband. Scripture makes this point perfectly clear. And a wife has a clear responsibility to refuse a command from her husband if it causes her to sin. But with authority comes responsibility and a Christian husband needs to understand his responsibility and also that his wife is not a robot given to him by God to do with as he wills. She is not a horse that needs to be broken.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly _not_ acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?





Think of what some of you guys are saying:

1) If a husband is an unbelieving pagan, then the wife should submit to him in everything.

2) But if a husband IS a believer, then anytime he doesn't act like a Christian should, then it is ok for his wife to be disobedient.

That is inconsistent nonsense! If a wife should submit to an unbeliever, then submitting to virtually _anything_ requested by a believer should be a no-brainer!!!

Where in the Bible does it say that a wife's responsibility to submit is *reduced* after her unbelieving husband becomes a Christian? Show me!


----------



## Texas Aggie

Joseph,

The original question states:

"dance down the street singing at the top of her lungs, must she do it? Is she in sin if she refuses? He is not asking her to sin, though he himself is in sin for lording his authority over her."

This implies that a husband is wishing his wife to do something that is on the verge of being "outrageous." Of course singing in the street is not sinful. Acting like a fool is. You know that.

Singing in the street is not the point Joseph. Doing something contrary to the law of God at the wishes of your husband is.

The original post implies that the husband wants her to do something foolish (this is what I gather from Christine´s statement). "œDancing" down the street and "œsinging at the top of your lungs" implies foolish behavior... not the norm. This is not humble Christian behavior in the public arena (therefore displaying a false witness).

Of course a Christian can dance and cheer, celebrate and sing.... just look at game day down in Aggieland. When the Aggies win a game you can count on all the Christians in the stands cheering in public and singing at the top of their lungs. Nothing wrong with that.

Christine's question implies foolish behavior.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly _not_ acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?
Click to expand...


I would say that in general a wife should submit to her husband's request, unless of course she can find book, chapter, verse showing that it would be sinful regardless of how rediculous it was, either running down the street singing or playing in traffic (nothing in Scripture says playing in traffic is sinful!). 

But the real question is that if she refuses, is she sinning and subject to the discipline of the Church? And would you as an officer of the Church discipline her?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly _not_ acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think of what some of you guys are saying:
> 
> 1) If a husband is an unbelieving pagan, then the wife should submit to him in everything.
> 
> 2) But if a husband IS a believer, then anytime he doesn't act like a Christian should, then it is ok for his wife to be disobedient.
> 
> That is inconsistent nonsense! If a wife should submit to an unbeliever, then submitting to virtually _anything_ requested by a believer should be a no-brainer!!!
> 
> Where in the Bible does it say that a wife's responsibility to submit is *reduced* after her unbelieving husband becomes a Christian? Show me!
Click to expand...


I don't recall saying that a wife married to a pagan must submit to him in everything.

In my hypothetical world, Christian women are not unequally yoked to unbelievers!


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I am making the assumption that both are Christians and am attempting (and it is appears rather poorly) to resolve the situation based on that assumption. And based on that assumption I expect both to act like Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I think we all agree, as Joseph said above, that in the singing-in-the-street situation, the husband is certainly _not_ acting like a responsible Christian with regard to his request. So granting that he is not, and that he should be corrected by the Church in time, is there a Scriptural reason the wife should not submit in the mean-time? In other words, putting aside the situation from the husband's perspective for a moment, what about the situation as seen fully from the wife's perspective?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say that in general a wife should submit to her husband's request, unless of course she can find book, chapter, verse showing that it would be sinful regardless of how rediculous it was, either running down the street singing or playing in traffic (nothing in Scripture says playing in traffic is sinful!).
> 
> But the real question is that if she refuses, is she sinning and subject to the discipline of the Church? And would you as an officer of the Church discipline her?
Click to expand...


If I were an officer of their church, I would definitely rebuke the husband's action and go through a process of discipline to bring about his repentance and fix the situation, since in his request he is not responsibly looking out for the best interest of his wife, which is sin. But at the same time, during the time-period that he still remained in unrepentance, I would not counsel the wife to refrain from submission to his request.

It parallels what I as a police officer would do in regard to a federal law I thought was irresponsible (and even sinful) on the part of the government, but that did not put citizens who follow it in sin. I would try to get the government to change it, but in the mean-time, I would discipline the citizens who did not follow it.


----------



## wsw201

> If I were an officer of their church, I would definitely rebuke the husband's action and go through a process of discipline to bring about his repentance and fix the situation, since in his request he is not responsibly looking out for the best interest of his wife, which is sin. But at the same time, during the time-period that he still remained in unrepentance, I would not counsel the wife to refrain from submission to his request.



So let me get this straight, you are saying that she should obey her husband and start running down the street singing at the top of her lungs until he repents? (hopefully he gave her a time limit or distance limit).


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> If I were an officer of their church, I would definitely rebuke the husband's action and go through a process of discipline to bring about his repentance and fix the situation, since in his request he is not responsibly looking out for the best interest of his wife, which is sin. But at the same time, during the time-period that he still remained in unrepentance, I would not counsel the wife to refrain from submission to his request.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight, you are saying that she should obey her husband and start running down the street singing at the top of her lungs until he repents? (hopefully he gave her a time limit or distance limit).
Click to expand...


For one thing, keep in mind that I would be anything but passive in rebuking in disciplining the husband, not simply "waiting around" for him to agree and repent. But during that process, I suppose my answer to your question would ultimately hinge on whether or not we can classify that action on the part of the wife as sinful. I naturally agree with your point that Scripture does not explicitly forbid something like going out in the middle of traffic, but that it is of course sinful because of irresponsibility with our lives. So could you bring some Scripture to the discussion that speaks out against foolish public actions as sinful in such a way that would include an action like the one under consideration?


----------



## Dan....

I can't believe that no one mentioned what the woman's brothers would do to the man upon finding out about his disrespect of their sister...





[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## wsw201

I believe dancing down the street singing at the top of your lungs would not be considered honorable conduct (1 Pet 2:12) and would more than likely bring reproach upon Christ and His Church.

But I am a bit confused. You say that the husband has made a request that was not in the best interest of his wife by having her dance down the street singing at the top of her lungs and that he should be rebuked for making such a request. So how can a Session ask her to submit to his request that they have deemed "not in her best interest" regardless of being sinful or not?


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> I can't believe that no one mentioned what the woman's brothers would do to the man upon finding out about his disrespect of their sister...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 6-24-2005 by Dan....]



I hinted at that iwhen I said if it were my daughter.


----------



## ReformedWretch

In everything the prudent acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly. (Proverbs 13:16). 

One who is wise is cautious[a] and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless. (Proverbs 14:16)

"A wise person thinks much about death, while the fool thinks only about *having a good time now*" (Eccl 7:4)


----------



## wsw201

In considering the issue of submission, what do ya'll think of the situation between Nabal and Abigail (1 Sam 25:2ff)? Abigail purposefully disobeyed her husband.


----------



## puritangirl

Thank you for all your replies. 

My question was not -"is the husband in sin" - that was kind of supposed to be a given. I agree with everyone who said that the husband who asks his wife to parade down the street singing is in sin. My question was, "is the wife in sin if she does not obey?" I am not married, but I am dating someone seriously and this came up. He has no intention to lord his authority over me in sin once we're married, but we started talking about this hypothetical situation. I wanted to say that the wife doesn't have to submit when the husband sinfully asks the wife to do something that is NOT sin, but my boyfriend was making really good points that led me to think this is wrong. (Both my boyfriend and I agreed that a wife in this situation should go to session about it if the husband refuses to submit.) I guess I posted this on the PB in order to see if I have any Biblical reason for thinking that the wife should not submit to an unreasonable husband. My conclusion is that I don't. 

1 Peter 2:18 "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 
"Who committed no sin, 
Nor was deceit found in His mouth";
who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. 

Wives, LIKEWISE be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear."


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> I don't recall saying that a wife married to a pagan must submit to him in everything.



If you don't think they should, then you are directly contradicting Ephesians 5, and are in even more explicit contradiction with *1 Peter 3*, which is *specifically written for women with unbelieving husbands!*



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> In my hypothetical world, Christian women are not unequally yoked to unbelievers!



Your hypothetical world does not exist, even according to Scriptural principals! You forget that sometimes people marry when they are BOTH non-Christians. Then, later, the wife becomes a believer. When they got married, were they unequally yoked? Of course not! Has she done something wrong by becoming a Christian later? Of course not! Should she divorce her husband now that she is a Christian? Of course not!

On the contrary, now that she is a Christian who is *rightfully* married to an unbeliever, she should obey 1 Peter 3. And she should obey Ephesians 5.


----------



## Romans922

the husband would be wrong to ask her to do such a thing because it would not be loving.

the wife though needs to submit to him in all things, just as we are to submit to Christ in all things. (unless it is submitting to take part in sin).


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritangirl_
> 
> I guess I posted this on the PB in order to see if I have any Biblical reason for thinking that the wife should not submit to an unreasonable husband. My conclusion is that I don't.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:18 "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
> "Who committed no sin,
> Nor was deceit found in His mouth";
> who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
> 
> Wives, LIKEWISE be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear."



 puritangirl!!! Excellent point, Christine . . . I wish I had thought of that Scriptural connection, as well. 

God commands wives to be submissive to their husbands in the same way as He commands men to submit to harsh masters. That is tough medicine for anyone to take. That is one reason why it is so important to pick a truly *godly* spouse!!! Wonderful point, Christine.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> I don't recall saying that a wife married to a pagan must submit to him in everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think they should, then you are directly contradicting Ephesians 5, and are in even more explicit contradiction with *1 Peter 3*, which is *specifically written for women with unbelieving husbands!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> In my hypothetical world, Christian women are not unequally yoked to unbelievers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hypothetical world does not exist, even according to Scriptural principals! You forget that sometimes people marry when they are BOTH non-Christians. Then, later, the wife becomes a believer. When they got married, were they unequally yoked? Of course not! Has she done something wrong by becoming a Christian later? Of course not! Should she divorce her husband now that she is a Christian? Of course not!
> 
> On the contrary, now that she is a Christian who is *rightfully* married to an unbeliever, she should obey 1 Peter 3. And she should obey Ephesians 5.
Click to expand...


Ease up Joseph. 

This whole scenario is hypothetical. And I am not contradicting anything. It appears that you are making the assumption that a woman has no recourse to the Church, which she does, for having her husband make her do something stupid or totally rediculous. If you told your wife to roost in a tree for 8 hours and sqawk like a chicken, and she refused to do it, I guarnantee you that no Session would back you up on that. In fact in the REAL WORLD, as Chris has accurately pointed out, you would be the one who would be having a serious discussion with your Session.

BTW, your advise is correct. Women should make sure they are marrying a godly man or they might find themselves roosting in trees sqawking like chickens!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> BTW, your advise is correct. Women should make sure they are marrying a godly man or they might find themselves roosting in trees sqawking like chickens!


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## Contra_Mundum

Joseph,
I'm basically in your corner on this one.

But to offer one more note (someone may have said this near the end--I started to skim),

if the woman has a question of conscience (and I think that self-humiliation can be a legitimate question of conscience) then she should humbly refuse until the two of them have gone to see the pastor/session.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Joseph,
> I'm basically in your corner on this one.
> 
> But to offer one more note (someone may have said this near the end--I started to skim),
> 
> if the woman has a question of conscience (and I think that self-humiliation can be a legitimate question of conscience) then she should humbly refuse until the two of them have gone to see the pastor/session.



Ok, now that makes sense. Even there, I'm sure you and I both would have a problem with a gal regularly using this method as an excuse to not immediately obey her husband. But yes, I would have to agree with you that in a real question of conscience, it would make sense for her to ask the pastor/session for a second opinion. That way, they could either back the husband, or on the other hand, show the husband Biblically why her question of conscience is actually correct!

Good call.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Wow, I don't think there is much left to be said (LadyFlynt is speechless for once, this could be a good thing!).

Other than:

there are times that we are commanded to do things, even things that may seem totally foolish in our eyes, either by our husbands or by God Himself. Just because they seem foolish...do we really know what the full picture is? I know there are times a husband actually has a reason from asking the ridiculous (and not always a malicious reasoning).

However, public and malicious acts don't neccesarily portray the woman as foolish...guess who she is a reflection of? Her husband, what she does reflects him. If he gives her a foolish command (though not sinful), then the consequences directly reflect on him more than her. (and if she is fortunate to have a father or brother around...have at a little brotherly discipline...but respect her for being an obedient wife rather than a spiteful one).

My husband knows of a man who went out everynight after work partying. Treated his wife like garbage. She was a Christian; he was not. She was also a submissive wife in all things. While drinking with his friends and listening to them all put down their wives and girlfriends---how they're bossy, treat them (the men) like garbage, etc...he realized he couldn't say any of that about his wife and decided to brag on it. "My wife isn't like that" Of course with his partying and running around on her, his friends didn't believe him. So he said, "Come with me home right now (about 1 or 2am) and watch". They all went to his house, he told her to get out of bed and fix him and his friends breakfast. She did!
When one of his friends asked her why she was willing to put up with this and do things like this for him...here is what she said, "Because my husband is not a Christian and this is the only heaven he'll ever know."
The husband overheard all of this. Two weeks later his whole life changed because of God's grace.

How much more so should we submit to our Christian husbands as this woman submitted to her unbelieving husband?



Yes, a husband has a duty to love his wife...regardless of her submissiveness or lack thereof to him.
Yes, a wife should submit to her husband...regardless of his love or lack thereof for her.

Too many times I've heard couples cutting eachother..."well, he doesn't show he loves me", "well, she doesn't let me lead the house". They both need to be in their proper places. They are both at fault. But we need to deal with each individually. In dealing with the woman I've been accused of taking "his side". No, I am talking with her and she can only fix herself...not him. By fixing her reponses she can possibly change her circumstances. "Eve, step back!" That is what Adam should have said...sorry, but I think Adam was present at the time. When women think they know best, most men will step back and let her wear the pants (per se). Especially in our feminized society. Many times it takes the woman stepping back FIRST before a man will fulfill his role. WHY? Because men have learned that to try and push their authority makes most women rebel and loudly so "how dare he!" and so they don't. A man needs to feel like a man to act like one...when the wife is busy being the man, then what is the use. (So much for the woman who won't submit till her husband is "right"....right according to whom? Her?) So many times in my early marriage, I caused fights and grief because "I knew" that my husband's decision was a mistake and I didn't want him to make that "mistake". Looking back, how foolish "I" was! I could have been spared much grief by submitting to him. I could have spared him much embarrasement by letting him make those decisions (even when I "felt" he wasn't defending me or thinking of me first)...the whole time, he was thinking of me. I was clueless.

Okay, there's a story or two. Now, go chew.

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## wsw201

> However, public and malicious acts don't neccesarily portray the woman as foolish...guess who she is a reflection of? Her husband, what she does reflects him. If he gives her a foolish command (though not sinful), then the consequences directly reflect on him more than her.



I just had a vision of Colleen roosting in a tree sqawking like a chicken. And while she was sqawking she would say "but I'm just relecting my husband !" and her husband comes out to check on her in a big chicken suit! 

Sorry! I couldn't help myself!


----------



## Arch2k

Thanks for that Coleen. Good post.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> However, public and malicious acts don't neccesarily portray the woman as foolish...guess who she is a reflection of? Her husband, what she does reflects him. If he gives her a foolish command (though not sinful), then the consequences directly reflect on him more than her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just had a vision of Colleen roosting in a tree sqawking like a chicken. And while she was sqawking she would say "but I'm just relecting my husband !" and her husband comes out to check on her in a big chicken suit!
> 
> Sorry! I couldn't help myself!
Click to expand...


 I do have a sense of humour (I loved the hen in a tree pic posted!)

I can also think of an old testament example...hello, doesn't anyone remember what happened to Vashti?


----------



## satz

quite an interesting thread...

reading all this stuff about female submission actually makes me realize what a big duty and responsibility men and husbands have. I guess lots of times we guys ( or at least me ) don't realize that getting tough on female submission also means getting tough on male responsibility.

Anyway, what do you guys think about the issue of submission in an situation where the husband obviously wants, and has requested, his wife to do something, but he stops short of giving a 'command' to do so. He may even verbally say that he doesn't mind if she refuses. Is there any issue of submission here? Or what about a situation where the husband wants something but after a long 'discussion' the wife is able to persuade him to change his mind, albeit reluctantly. 

I guess these situations could also apply especially as between children and parents.

So what is our response here? Is it a woman's duty to 'read between the lines' and do what her husband wants? Or do we say if he's not man enough to say it out loud he shouldn't get it?

Thoughts?


----------



## LadyFlynt

In the case of children...there is room for appeal with the understanding that parents still make the ulitmate decision. This should be done respectfully though.

Speaking as a wife...we also have room for either appeal or counsel. A man should listen to his wife's counsel...she may be able to at least give another side of the picture...and together they can come to a decision. However, the main responsibility for making the decision should rest on the husband's shoulders. And a wife would be wrong if she pressured wrongfully (in a wrongful manner) her husband to decide a certain way.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> In the case of children...there is room for appeal with the understanding that parents still make the ulitmate decision. This should be done respectfully though.
> 
> Speaking as a wife...we also have room for either appeal or counsel. A man should listen to his wife's counsel...she may be able to at least give another side of the picture...and together they can come to a decision. However, the main responsibility for making the decision should rest on the husband's shoulders. And a wife would be wrong if she pressured wrongfully (in a wrongful manner) her husband to decide a certain way.



thanks..i agree with what you've said.

I am wonder though about a situation in which a discussion has taken place and the husband has reluctantly decided to follow his wife's point of view, not because he agrees with her views but just to avoid further conflict.

Since the original example was about dancing, say here the couple are at a formal dinner or what not. The husband want to dance, the wife doesn't want to. After some discussion the husband does that sterotypical TV thing where he throws his hands in the air and goes 'ahh..there's not point if you heart's not in it.'

Assuming the wife was completely biblical in the way she approached the discussion, is there any issue here? Or can she just take it that the authority has changed its mind?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Truthfully, it sounds as though there is more than meets the eye. Sounds like she corrects or redirects the decisions on a regular basis. This is the kind of woman I am talking about...they can approach it in a "totally biblical" manner, but always with the intent of undermining what their husband desires...happens often enough or on a very regular basis then "Adam" steps back automatically rather than push the issue. Some of these men are this way from the start due to, say, their mothers. These men really need a wife that will IMMEDIATELY jump at the chance to do what hubby wants when he actually makes a DECISION that he wants to do something. Therefore, given how hubby reacts...yes, she should have just smiled and danced with him. Dancing is not WHOLLY anti-biblical...and especially when it is with one's husband.


----------



## bond-servant

Excellent post Colleen


----------



## Romans922

darn matriarchial societies.


----------



## BJClark

I guess I don't see this as completely a submission issue, her husband asked her to dance and sing down the street, she can say No. Why? Because it was a request. He was asking her do something. We always have a right to say No, and it not be about a submission issue.

But the real issue is, why is he asking her to sing and dance down the street?

Is it to embarass her? Is it to make her look foolish? Is he willing to sing and dance down the street with her? Or is he wanting her to do this alone?

If he is willing to do the same (by leading), then sure why not sing and dance down the street? 

but, if he is asking her to do this and HE is not willing to do the same, then it is more a matter of lording his 'authority' over her.

Christ would never ask us to do anything HE Himself was not willing to do, so if a husband is willing to go out and sing and dance down the street, then by all means the wife should be willing to do the same. However, if the husband being the leader, is not willing to do the same then He should not be asking his wife to do those things either.


----------



## BJClark

satz,

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I wish for my husband to be direct in his communication with me, as God did not gift me with the ability to be a mind reader.

A question though, are you asking your wife to do something that you are not willing to do yourself?

Anyone should be willing to ask for what they want and need from others in a direct way. It's proper communication skills. However, if they refuse, you should ask why? If it's something they have a problem with emotionally or otherwise, then you need to find out why, and that is done through open and honest communication. It could be something they are uncomfortable with, and don't necessarily need to be, but just have a personal issue with it, but either way a husband and wife should ALWAYS respect the others No, but at the same time learn to understand WHY they are saying NO. 

Have you ever read the book "Boundaries in Marriage"?


----------



## LadyFlynt

BJ, Again, too many times one side wants to set up boundaries and yet to have none placed on themselves. This is why I put in the appeal. Most couples won't get to the point of her "singing down the street" (which is a ridiculous example, In my humble opinion). They will generally end up talking. No one here ever stated that a woman couldn't ask her husband "what's the deal". Unfortunately there are times when a wife finds certain commands silly and then consequences ensue when she disobeys (ie, the pillar of salt).


----------



## gwine

I am surprised that no one has suggested that loud singing in the streets could get you a disorderly conduct charge.


----------



## LadyFlynt




----------



## BJClark

LadyFlynt,

I understand that, as even God has boundaries and we don't always like those.

I personally would dance and sing down the street, only because I am that way and don't get embarassed by such things. I wouldn't even need to ask my husband if he would join me, as I know He would be embarassed. (so I know he wouldn't ask me to do such a silly thing) because he knows me well enough to know I WOULD do it, just for fun.  

My kids don't even ask me to do things like that anymore as they are more embarassed by my doing them than I am. They know I don't care what the neighbors think.

They get embarassed at church when I'm singing, not that I sing off key, It just comes out loud, because I'm singing to God and not those around me and people turn around to look, they start the "mom shhhh, people are staring"


----------



## LadyFlynt

You sound as nutty as me!


----------



## Arch2k

I think the thrust of this thread was NOT to examine the sinfullness of the husband's request to sing and dance down the street. It is obvious that in this example, it is probably an example of the husband lording his authority over her, and therefore he would be in sin.

That being said, the sinfullness of the husband's request does NOT excuse the wife from submitting to her husband's request. She is to fulfill HER duty (as long as the action is not sinful in and of itself) DESPITE the sinfullness of her husband.

If the request is lawful (i.e. not sinful) the woman was not given the authority to pick and choose when and when not she is to submit to her husband.

Submission should look like Christ and how he submitted himself to the father:

Luke 22:42


> "œFather, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; *nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."*


----------



## BJClark

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> You sound as nutty as me!



My kids get embarassed when we go to Wal-mart or Target and they have the CD's that you can listen to the various music, I sing along with those, my husband and I have been known to stand there and dance in the aisle,
the kids go run and hide. 

it was funny last time we did that, another couple our age joined us (40+), their kids ran and hid too, the other couple just laughed and said "hey now we know how we can embarass the kids."


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> satz,
> 
> I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I wish for my husband to be direct in his communication with me, as God did not gift me with the ability to be a mind reader.
> 
> A question though, are you asking your wife to do something that you are not willing to do yourself?



Your husband might just say the same thing about you. It is part of the falleness of mankind that all people do NOT communicate well. Encourage your husband in a gentle way to do so, and remind yourself that you need to communicate too.

There might be points in life with your husband that he might ask/tell you to do something that he isn't willing to do himself. What will you do, especially if what he is asking wouldn't be sinful if you did do it? I think it is in proper obedience to do what he says. Just as Christ obeyed His Father, and as the Church should obey/submit to Christ, in everything.


----------



## BJClark

Romans922,

I speak very directly with my husband, I don't like hints or backdoor messages, nor do I like avoiding conflict in my marriage, I don't like secrets and I know the only way my husband or anyone can know my thoughts (other than God Himself) is to speak them. I may not speak them right away, but journal them first, so that I am not lashing out in the heat of the moment, where things can not be taken back and someone gets hurt, but I do share them eventually.

My husband has learned that if I have something on my heart that is bothering me I will talk to him about it, even if it means waking him up at 3 in the morning to do so. There are very few times I have done that, but I have when things were really weighing heavy on my heart; and you know, he has done the same with me, again not very often but he has.

Thus far, there has yet to be a time when my husband has asked me to do something he is *unwilling* to do himself. He may not be able due to circumstances and he'll ask me to do things, but I know if he had time in his schedule, he would. But then we are a team, and each team member has their own responsibilities and sometimes we have to help the other person out. 

But I'm curious, what things would you ask your wife to do, that you are *unwilling* to do yourself? Not that you can't do them, but just will not do under any circumstances?


----------



## Romans922

I am not in that situation to know at this time, but I could image there would be a few times in life with a spouse where a husband would ask something of his wife. 

What will you do, if your husband tells you to do something and wouldn't do himself (that something being not sinful)?


----------



## 5solasmom

Those who say it doesn't matter if the hubby is in sin or not, but that what matters is that the wife submits if it isn't sin for her ~

The idea that a woman is not in sin by doing something foolish at the demand of her husband (assuming his intent is to abuse his leadership, showing clear disregard and unconcern for his wife's HEART) is hard for me to grasp. I wonder....is she encouraging HIS sin by doing so? in my opinion, this isn't an across the board issue. There will be times she can submit to something even knowing her dh has a wrong motive etc. but there are times when she must not. 

Let's take another example. Husband is a drunk. TELLS wife to drink with him, _not get "drunk"_" but have some wine while he get's blasted. So according to this mindset, she is to submit (assuming here that she has no "conviction" against general alcohol consumption) because partaking alchohol is not a sin (drunkeness is), therefore for her, she *must* submit to his request. 



The argument that a wife submits in "everything" regardless of the man's sin in requiring her to is an interesting argument being that the word used to support this thought does not exclude those things that are sinful....we obviously (and rightly) imply it based upon the rest of scripture...which is my point - the word itself does not literally MEAN "everything"... another example of why we do not isolate scripture from context or build a theology around an obscure verse etc. So we already KNOW and agree that it can't mean "everything". When I have time, I plan to study this entire passage out more deeply, but this is my initial thought on it.

The marriage relationship is compared to Christ and the Church. That's where we look to come to a proper view of headshiip and submission. It is not controller/controllee. Relationship is inherrent. 

Where is the biblical support for the idea that "a wife is to submit if it is not sin, otherwise, her refusal to submit to any request not inherently 'sinful' IS sin, regardless of the husbands sin in requiring it"? Sin is not OUTSIDE of our hearts. If my dh told me to dance and sing in the street, it would hurt me that he would expect me to, as I would feel he does not care or love me very much to make me do such a thing, cause me extreme embarrassement and shame, and seriously mar my testimony for Christ to those who see it. But I guess, because those are heart issues or problems/sins in me (because I should do it cheerfully regardless), I must "get over it", since the act itself is devoid of sin (ie. dancing and singing in the street is not sin) and do it anyway, or I would be a rebellious and disobedient wife.

I don't get it (and for those who may be wondering, neither does my dh).

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by 5solasmom]


----------



## LadyFlynt

It's sad how many times I've seen a marriage ruined over the petty excuses of:

"my husband doesn't love me like the church"
"my husband embarrassed me"
"my husband doesn't provide the support he should"
"my husband is being foolish and I shouldn't have to go along with it"

Honestly! There were times that I fought what I supposed was my husband's foolishness, only to find out he had purpose and I was the foolish one for fighting it. Marriage isn't even about being "in love"...so yes, get over it...love your husband anyway and don't wear his breaches. Most of the time the husband changes based on the way a wife responds. Intelligent men have been made to appear as dimwits due to a wife's attitude and blackmail. Timid men have been made leaders by their wife's support.

My husband hears it everyday on the job...he comes home and wonders why I'm still here when women are leaving their husbands everyday. You may wonder what this has to do with obediance....EVERYTHING...because it all has to do with the heart. At what point are you going to rebel. And are you willing to risk your marriage for it? Don't say that this is petty stuff and not marriage breaking...because the attitudes that go with it generally lead to such.

Also, there is a segment of this discussion that is being ignored. No one implied that when a husband speaks that the wife "snaps to". It has been stated several times, that the "request" is open to discussion...and generally does.

Also, we are to obey our husbands, they their bosses, etc as long as it isn't against God's Word. It's sad...but many women will apply this teaching to their job (heavens, they wouldn't want to lose that!) but not to their marriage (as of course it's "his" fault).

Now if you are going towards an abusive situation, then there is something to be said for separation (not divorce).


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> Those who say it doesn't matter if the hubby is in sin or not, but that what matters is that the wife submits if it isn't sin for her ~
> 
> The idea that a woman is not in sin by doing something foolish at the demand of her husband (assuming his intent is to abuse his leadership, showing clear disregard and unconcern for his wife's HEART) is hard for me to grasp. I wonder....is she encouraging HIS sin by doing so? in my opinion, this isn't an across the board issue. There will be times she can submit to something even knowing her dh has a wrong motive etc. but there are times when she must not.
> 
> Let's take another example. Husband is a drunk. TELLS wife to drink with him, _not get "drunk"_" but have some wine while he get's blasted. So according to this mindset, she is to submit (assuming here that she has no "conviction" against general alcohol consumption) because partaking alchohol is not a sin (drunkeness is), therefore for her, she *must* submit to his request.
> 
> 
> 
> The argument that a wife submits in "everything" regardless of the man's sin in requiring her to is an interesting argument being that the word used to support this thought does not exclude those things that are sinful....we obviously (and rightly) imply it based upon the rest of scripture...which is my point - the word itself does not literally MEAN "everything"... another example of why we do not isolate scripture from context or build a theology around an obscure verse etc. So we already KNOW and agree that it can't mean "everything". When I have time, I plan to study this entire passage out more deeply, but this is my initial thought on it.
> 
> The marriage relationship is compared to Christ and the Church. That's where we look to come to a proper view of headshiip and submission. It is not controller/controllee. Relationship is inherrent.
> 
> Where is the biblical support for the idea that "a wife is to submit if it is not sin, otherwise, her refusal to submit to any request not inherently 'sinful' IS sin, regardless of the husbands sin in requiring it"? Sin is not OUTSIDE of our hearts. If my dh told me to dance and sing in the street, it would hurt me that he would expect me to, as I would feel he does not care or love me very much to make me do such a thing, cause me extreme embarrassement and shame, and seriously mar my testimony for Christ to those who see it. But I guess, because those are heart issues or problems/sins in me (because I should do it cheerfully regardless), I must "get over it", since the act itself is devoid of sin (ie. dancing and singing in the street is not sin) and do it anyway, or I would be a rebellious and disobedient wife.
> 
> I don't get it (and for those who may be wondering, neither does my dh).
> 
> [Edited on 9-27-2005 by 5solasmom]



.

No one here is excusing the man's sin. However, this topic isn't necessarily focused on the husband. It is focused on the woman's submission.

It isn't an if/then statement. If your husband loves you, then you submit to him. It is "husband love your wife....wife submit to your husband in all things". If the husband doesn't love his wife, he is in sin. If the wife doesn't submit in all things (except if it would be sin) she is in sin.

As to submitting in all things (or everything). Wives are to submit to their husbands, as the Church has been commanded to submit to Christ. How is the Church supposed to submit to Christ? In all things that He commands. 

If the wife submits to her husband in all things, it will soften his heart.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Romans922]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Precisely...as stated before...when dealing with the woman, deal with what she is or isn't doing and what she should or shouldn't be doing. I let hubby deal with the men about their part of the issues. (We have actually dealt with this before in counseling a few other couples)

And no, we are not to use their sin as an excuse for our actions.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## BJClark

Romans922,



> I am not in that situation to know at this time, but I could image there would be a few times in life with a spouse where a husband would ask something of his wife.



Actually, my husband wouldn't ask me or anyone to do something he's not willing to do himself, his idea of a leadership is someone who leads BY example, not dictatorship. And he looks at it that if he isn't willing to do it, then he isn't going to ask someone else to.

Not even Christ asks us to do things He wasn't willing to do Himself, (and not that my husband is Christ, he is Christ-like in this way) I can't imagine my husband asking me to do something he isn't willing to do himself.

So I'm curious what can you imagine a husband could ask his wife to do that he, himself wouldn't be willing to do?

I realize your not in that situation, but if you can imagine it can happen, you must have some ideas of what those things would be. So what are they? What things can you imagine asking a wife to do that you, yourself would be unwilling to do?


[Edited on 9-27-2005 by BJClark]

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## puritangirl

Yes LadyFlynt, I agree with you. The reason I posted this "ridiculous" example in the first place was because I wanted to figure out - not whether or not the husband was in sin for asking his wife to do something so stupid - but whether or not the wife has the authority to decide whether he has asked her to do something "stupid" and whether she has the choice not to do it, when it is not specifically sin. My future husband will never ask me to dance down the street and make a fool of myself EVER. But he has asked me to take the "Christ" out of Christmas worms. Do I dismiss this as ridiculous? No - I do not have that authority, even if it strikes me as so in the first place. Now, I am the point where I understand where he is coming from, but my point is that there are times when husbands ask their wives to do something that, to the wife, may seem as ridiculous as dancing down the street making a fool out of herself. My purpose in this post was to confirm what I suspected - that it is still her duty to submit to him, respect him and treat him like the head God has made him, even when she doesn't understand why he made such a request (and of course, discussion may and must proceed a request that she doesn't understand). 

I know that it is not unusual for a wife to think that she has some "moral" reason not to submit to her husband, even though he has not outrightly asked her to sin. A certain wife I know will not even visit a church on Sunday nights that her husband really wants to visit, because she thinks it is "betraying" the church in which they are members, though that church has no night service. Because she will make life for him difficult if he insists on visiting a church in which he could truly grow, he has decided (against his wishes) not to go. His wife is inhibiting his growth and spiritual leadership, and the issue is that she thinks she has morally sound reasons for doing so. However, this is not a wife's call to make - he has not asked her sin, and so she does not have the "position" to veto his leadership. There are so many other examples of wives assuming a way that they deem more "spiritual" than that of their husbands. The wife Colleen mentioned earlier who made her husband and his friends breakfast at the break of a dawn is a perfect example of a wife that did not try to loophole her God-given place as a wife in order to have her own way. And look what came of it!

It comes down to this: we do not submit to our husbands because they are the smartest, most respectable and Christ-like men we know - we submit to them because they are in the position that demands that, whether or not we think they deserve it. It is not our choice to make - God put them in that position, not us. When we agreed to be their wife, we agreed to be their help-meet, and most importantly we agreed to model Christ and the church to the world. We trust Christ when He asks us to do things we do not understand or want to do. It was not Christ's will to bear the sins of the elect, and yet He did it in obedience. The "joy set before Him" was pleasing His Father. Wives can rest in the fact that submission to their husbands pleases their Father who is in Heaven. We submit to our Heavenly Bridegroom by submitting to our earthly one. For wives who have made Christ their ambition (all else is "loss"), their will is quickly lost in His.

Of course this does not stand in cases of abuse. But it goes against the grain of modern culture, and our marriages today painfully reflect the foolishness of our disobedience.


----------



## 5solasmom

Colleen, I am not sure you are speaking directly to me, but there are a few things I will try to address in the time I have to do so.

I don't know how to quote yet, so quotes are in italics.

_Most of the time the husband changes based on the way a wife responds._

Which is not the issue I am addressing at all. I am dealing with the issue of whether or not it is ALWAYS disobedience if a wife doesn't do what her husband tellls her to, i.e. is the demand/command totally irrelevant? I agree wholeheartedly that we are to obey the Word of God and that we will see much fruit as a result, but this is not an "if you do this, it will cause your dh to do this" issue. FTR, I am not advocating never obeying a husband who asks a wife to do something she may think unwise or even foolish (which I said in my original post).

_You may wonder what this has to do with obediance....EVERYTHING...because it all has to do with the heart._

EXACTLY. Obedience IS true obedience when our hearts obey. If we relegate "obedience" to mean doing something someone tells you to regardless of their or our sinful attitude in it, we are defining obedience as merely EXTERNAL ACTION. 

_At what point are you going to rebel. And are you willing to risk your marriage for it? Don't say that this is petty stuff and not marriage breaking...because the attitudes that go with it generally lead to such._

Marriages are not solely dependant on the wife. She is not the maker or breaker of a marriage. This kind of mindset relegates the failure or success of a marriage fully on the wife. I am not speaking of divorce here.

_Also, there is a segment of this discussion that is being ignored. No one implied that when a husband speaks that the wife "snaps to". It has been stated several times, that the "request" is open to discussion...and generally does._

The initial discussion centered on her obeying regardless. I did not say anything about someone saying "snap to it". I was speaking to the posts which said she should obey in everything.



[Edited on 9-27-2005 by 5solasmom]


----------



## Mrs.SolaFide

Amen, Christine!

I know it's been said before on this thread, but it's not up to the wife's Christian liberty to decide when to submit. That's only agreeing & doing what you WANT to do! When we submit we humble ourselves as servants, pushing our female pride/manipulative nature out of the way and doing what God and our husbands have asked of us...

Would Christ's command for us to love all people be an example of something that He does not do but expects us to do? It's difficult to love those who hate and persecute you - but we're still supposed to do it, even if we feel justified in our own hate for them. We would not do so out of the "goodness"  of our own hearts, & we don't WANT to do it - we only do it because the Lord commands it.


----------



## BJClark

5solasmom,



> Obedience IS true obedience when our hearts obey. If we relegate "obedience" to mean doing something someone tells you to regardless of their or our sinful attitude in it, we are defining obedience as merely EXTERNAL ACTION.



When I read some things I wonder if people think when a women becomes a wife she leaves the rest of her brain and Who she is in Christ as a CHRISTAIN at the front door.

The Bible tells me as a Christian, of which I am first even before I am a wife, I am to make my Yes mean Yes, and my No mean No. It also says to do everything without complaining. If my husband were to ask me to do something that I really don't want to do and I do it because I feel I would be sinning by not being the submissive wife to every word, then I am still sinning. As I'm not doing it because I WANT to do it to please Him, but out of obligation.

It most certainly has to do with the heart, Even God does not want us to serve Him because we think we are some how "obligated" to do so, that's not love.

God does not NEED US to serve Him, He WANTS us to with a JOYFUL heart, without complaining, without feeling pressured to do so, without feeling as if we are some how sinning if we don't. God does not in anyway want us to feel forced to do anything we don't want to do which is why He gave us Free will to choose. We are not puppets on a string. But, He wants us to CHOOSE to serve Him, He wants us to WANT to serve Him out of our Love for Him, out of the very Love He has placed in us through the Holy Spirit.

if you don't want to serve in a ministry then DON'T, God isn't going to pressure us to do something we do not want to do, He will change our want to if we allow Him to do so, but He won't force or pressure us to serve.

And as a marriage is supposed to show Christ's relationship with the Church, it should be the same way, you submit because you WANT to submit, You do things for your spouse not just because they said too, but 
because you WANT to out of your love for them, anything less is not love.

but then that is my understanding of what God has taught me over the years.


----------



## BJClark

MissSolaFide,




> Would Christ's command for us to love all people be an example of something that He does not do but expects us to do? It's difficult to love those who hate and persecute you - but we're still supposed to do it, even if we feel justified in our own hate for them. We would not do so out of the "goodness"  of our own hearts, & we don't WANT to do it - we only do it because the Lord commands it.



We only do it because of the Holy Spirit within us helps us to do it, He gives us the WANT to, we don't do it just because He commands it, but because HE changes our want to, but even then we still have a choice to do it or not. (though if we choose not to, there are consequences of quenching the spirit within us)


----------



## Mrs.SolaFide

But choosing NOT to do it is sin, isn't it?


----------



## puritangirl

BJ Clark,

I also don't know how to quote, so for now, I will just quote it with quotation marks. BJ Clark writes:

"He WANTS us to with a JOYFUL heart, without complaining, without feeling pressured to do so"

I agree. A wife is to always to submit to her husband (unless he asked her to sin), and she is always to do it with a joyful heart. We are always to obey God (and our husbands) with a cheerful heart. 

"without feeling as if we are some how sinning if we don't. God does not in anyway want us to feel forced to do anything we don't want to do which is why He gave us Free will to choose."

This I do not agree with at all. Jesus did not particularly want to die on the cross, as exemplified when He said,"Not MY will, but Yours be done." It was not His will to go through the pain and suffering of the cross, but He did it. Why? Because, more important than His own will is the will of the Father. Just because I may want to sleep in on a Sunday morning and forsake the gathering together of the people of the Lord doesn't mean that I can, because it's the Lord's Day and I have an obligation to keep the Sabbath holy. Just because I may want to give into my flesh and be impure before marriage doesn't mean I can, because otherwise I would be breaking the law of God and committing adultury. Just because I may want to dishonor my parents because I don't understand why they ask me to do the things they do doesn't mean I can, because I have been commanded to honor and obey my parents. Just because I may not understand or agree with my husband when he asks something of me does not mean I don't have to do it, because I am commanded by God to submit to my husband. No, becoming a wife doesn't mean you leave your "Christian status" at the door. But your identity in Christ and as a Christian will directly affect the kind of wife you are. You will either be the kind of wife who doesn't care what the Bible has to say but instead views her relationship with her husband as a "team" and a "partnership" (the world's view), or you will listen to the Word of God and humbly accept your place as a wife. Miss SolaFide makes a great point - God commands us not to be jealous, and yet He Himself claims that He is a jealous God. Do we not obey Him and dismiss His words (after all, it isn't fair - He's asked us to do something He Himself doesn't do...). No, of course not. You and I both agree that we strive to not be jealous, regardless of what God does. We understand that His place and our place are two very different things. In the same way, if your boss gives you a job to do, as an employee you must do it. It's not because you're an idiot or because you can't make your own decisions, but simply because your "place" is employee and his "place" is your employer. It is no different with marriage. There are different "places" and we are commanded by God to be submissive wives, and to, as you have pointed out, submit cheerfully. 

I might also add that submission is not submission when you already agree with your husband. Submission is subjecting your will to his when your wills differ.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Bobbie, I have to ask....are you or are you not a Calvinist? Your postings are showing free-will arminian views.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> Colleen, I am not sure you are speaking directly to me, but there are a few things I will try to address in the time I have to do so.



Yes, I was.




> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> _You may wonder what this has to do with obediance....EVERYTHING...because it all has to do with the heart._
> 
> EXACTLY. Obedience IS true obedience when our hearts obey. If we relegate "obedience" to mean doing something someone tells you to regardless of their or our sinful attitude in it, we are defining obedience as merely EXTERNAL ACTION.



In this case scripture is speaking to the external. It doesn't state that one should obey only if they agree. You can obey with a joyful heart to the Lord whether you are in agreement on the issue or not. As Christine mentioned...using Christ as an example.



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> _At what point are you going to rebel. And are you willing to risk your marriage for it? Don't say that this is petty stuff and not marriage breaking...because the attitudes that go with it generally lead to such._
> 
> Marriages are not solely dependant on the wife. She is not the maker or breaker of a marriage. This kind of mindset relegates the failure or success of a marriage fully on the wife. I am not speaking of divorce here.



No on said it was. You are misinterpreting the mindset. We are focusing on the wives' response. If you would like, start a thread for the men's side of things.



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> _Also, there is a segment of this discussion that is being ignored. No one implied that when a husband speaks that the wife "snaps to". It has been stated several times, that the "request" is open to discussion...and generally does._
> 
> The initial discussion centered on her obeying regardless. I did not say anything about someone saying "snap to it". I was speaking to the posts which said she should obey in everything.



Yes, if it isn't going against God's commands.


----------



## bond-servant

in my opinion, the wife is MUCH happier if she does follow Biblical commands whether he does or not

If one does the "wrong" thing for the "right" reason it is still sin, and 

if one does the "right" thing for the "wrong" reason (SELF will vs. Scripture) it too is sin


----------



## bond-servant

Also, Eph 5:23 states " For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church"

so if we are supposed to submit to God with a supple and joyful heart, why should we think that our husbands should be different? Thier place (positionally) in our lives is ordained by God.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> 5solasmom,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obedience IS true obedience when our hearts obey. If we relegate "obedience" to mean doing something someone tells you to regardless of their or our sinful attitude in it, we are defining obedience as merely EXTERNAL ACTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I read some things I wonder if people think when a women becomes a wife she leaves the rest of her brain and Who she is in Christ as a CHRISTAIN at the front door.
Click to expand...


Wow! Thanks for the insult! Believe me, my brain is fully functioning. What you think is being a doormat isactually called being a servant. There is a difference. As wives we are "helpmeets" (that is the position we have been given by God, therefore a part of WHO we are in Christ). We are not to seek our own. However, this does not mean we are mindless idiots either. In fact, I believe it takes a great deal of wisdom to be a proper helpmeet.



> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> The Bible tells me as a Christian, of which I am first even before I am a wife, I am to make my Yes mean Yes, and my No mean No. It also says to do everything without complaining. If my husband were to ask me to do something that I really don't want to do and I do it because I feel I would be sinning by not being the submissive wife to every word, then I am still sinning. As I'm not doing it because I WANT to do it to please Him, but out of obligation.



Well, then I guess I could only tell you what we all have to do in that situation. Pray that the Lord changes your heart and attitude. We all deal with it, we aren't perfect, but it doesn't excuse us from at the very least obeying externally while we work on the internal. Scripture speaks much about obligations. This prevents us from making excuses for wrong actions based on emotions.



> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> It most certainly has to do with the heart, Even God does not want us to serve Him because we think we are some how "obligated" to do so, that's not love.
> 
> God does not NEED US to serve Him, He WANTS us to with a JOYFUL heart, without complaining, without feeling pressured to do so, without feeling as if we are some how sinning if we don't. God does not in anyway want us to feel forced to do anything we don't want to do which is why He gave us Free will to choose. We are not puppets on a string. But, He wants us to CHOOSE to serve Him, He wants us to WANT to serve Him out of our Love for Him, out of the very Love He has placed in us through the Holy Spirit.
> 
> if you don't want to serve in a ministry then DON'T, God isn't going to pressure us to do something we do not want to do, He will change our want to if we allow Him to do so, but He won't force or pressure us to serve.



Here is where you are leaning away from reformed teachings. Proverbs 16:9 "a man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps"
There is also a verse that states that no man seeketh after the Lord. (having trouble with my SwordSearcher right now) and that it is the Lord that draweth the heart.
God isn't sitting there just waiting for us to WANT Him. He actually CREATES that desire.



> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> And as a marriage is supposed to show Christ's relationship with the Church, it should be the same way, you submit because you WANT to submit, You do things for your spouse not just because they said too, but
> because you WANT to out of your love for them, anything less is not love.



As Christine stated...Christ said that he would rather the cup be taken from him...but he submitted to the Will of the Father. And it sounds like the love you are talking about is the emotional love...not the love found in Scripture. Emotions ebb and flow. They change. I don't always "feel" like "loving" my husband or others. However, I "Love" them as in that I do that which is commanded of my by God...I support, take care of, want and do what is best for, etc. This is the love that is commanded...this is the love that Christ showed when he died on the cross.


[Edited on 9-27-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Puritanhead

You women crack me up...


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> Wow! Thanks for the insult! Believe me, my brain is fully functioning. What you think is being a doormat isactually called being a servant. There is a difference. As wives we are "helpmeets". We are not to seek our own. However, this does not mean we are mindless idiots either. In fact, I believe it takes a great deal of wisdom to be a proper helpmeet.



 Very well said Colleen.




> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> As Christine stated...Christ said that he would rather the cup be taken from him...but he submitted to the Will of the Father. And it sounds like the love you are talking about is the emotional love...not the love found in Scripture. Emotions ebb and flow. They change. I don't always "feel" like "loving" my husband or others. However, I "Love" them as in that I do that which is commanded of my by God...I support, take care of, want and do what is best for, etc. This is the love that is commanded...this is the love that Christ showed when he died on the cross.



 Love is a commitment, backed by actions, not necessarily feelings


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Love is a commitment, backed by actions, not necessarily feelings



Phrased much better than mine...thanks!


----------



## 5solasmom

Colleen, I am a little confused by the comment you made on me starting a thread on the men's side of things. You asked me, "At what point are you going to rebel. And are you willing to risk your marriage for it? Don't say that this is petty stuff and not marriage breaking...because the attitudes that go with it generally lead to such." Which I responded, "Marriages are not solely dependant on the wife. She is not the maker or breaker of a marriage. This kind of mindset relegates the failure or success of a marriage fully on the wife. I am not speaking of divorce here." My point was that marriage is made up of 2 people. No need to go start another thread - it was relevant to your comment.

The rabbit trails and tone within some comments on this thread are enough for me to quietly step out. My original questions and comments on the issue have still not been addressed. I am thankful that I am accepted in Christ, not by what I do or don't do, but by His blood alone. I am grateful my husband is the head and leader of our home, and I strive to submit to him with a cheerful heart. I fail, he fails. Praise God for His mercies. :bigsmile:


----------



## LadyFlynt

That was my point. In marriages, there are times that when the wife fails the men will fail as well as vise versa. We are dealing with wives. A woman doesn't alone make or break a marriage. But she does have a big impact on it. Many women have saved their marriages by focusing on their part alone. I would believe the same would apply in minor situations also. It does not mean that it is totally dependent upon her...but that her part is and her part affects his part.


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> You women crack me up...



Sorry, I must have missed something.. was something funny said here?  



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> 
> 
> The rabbit trails and tone within some comments on this thread are enough for me to quietly step out. My original questions and comments on the issue have still not been addressed. I am thankful that I am accepted in Christ, not by what I do or don't do, but by His blood alone. I am grateful my husband is the head and leader of our home, and I strive to submit to him with a cheerful heart. I fail, he fails. Praise God for His mercies. :bigsmile:



Romans 3:23..for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...
I think we all have. What is trying to be addressed here is the state of the wife's heart, Scriptural responsibililty, and attitudes and actions that result from it...

Don't be intimidated by the board. You'll find we all are quite opinionated here! LOL. Please continue to post in this thread if you have something else to add. 

I've grown a lot since coming to the PB, and made some good friends. I see you're already at 4 posts. Great start! Welcome to the board


----------



## LadyFlynt

I also apologize. We do get quite intense in debates...er, discussions. 

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> Romans922,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not in that situation to know at this time, but I could image there would be a few times in life with a spouse where a husband would ask something of his wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my husband wouldn't ask me or anyone to do something he's not willing to do himself, his idea of a leadership is someone who leads BY example, not dictatorship. And he looks at it that if he isn't willing to do it, then he isn't going to ask someone else to.
> 
> Not even Christ asks us to do things He wasn't willing to do Himself, (and not that my husband is Christ, he is Christ-like in this way) I can't imagine my husband asking me to do something he isn't willing to do himself.
> 
> So I'm curious what can you imagine a husband could ask his wife to do that he, himself wouldn't be willing to do?
> 
> I realize your not in that situation, but if you can imagine it can happen, you must have some ideas of what those things would be. So what are they? What things can you imagine asking a wife to do that you, yourself would be unwilling to do?
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-27-2005 by BJClark]
> 
> [Edited on 9-27-2005 by BJClark]
Click to expand...


I can imagine myself asking my wife to do something I would never do because I am a sinner. I never said it would be right or loving to do so. It would probably not be loving or right (but not necessarily, but that doesn't really matter), but the whole point of me saying that...is to ask the question 'What would you do?' or for me, "What would my wife do if I asked her to do something that I wouldn't do (hopefully I wouldn't do that, but what if I actually did do that)...what would she then do?" I would hope that she would obey me and moreso Christ (in not sinning, but also in obeying her husband because Christ has made him (husband) to be her head). That is the point: what would you do? obey or not obey...submit or not submit?


----------



## BJClark

LadyFlynt,

I guess that would depend, on whether you feel a person continues to have free will (or freedom in Christ) on what choices they make within their Christian walk or not. Which is why we are more Free in Christ than we are without Him.

I am no longer under the LAW, I am under Grace. I make the choice to live within the Law or not, but I am not controlled by the law.

I certainly have a choice in deciding to get up and go to Church on Sunday Morning or not. I know that if I don't go, *I* miss out on a Blessing in my life. However, I still have a choice in the matter and I'm not going to feel guilty if I choose not to go one Sunday. Why? Because I know it is my choice to spend that time with God or Not. 

I am even free to sin if I so choose, does it mean there will not be consequences if I make that choice? No, it doesn't, but I still have the freedom of choice or 'free will' to do so. 

Jesus actually had a CHOICE on whether or not He died on the Cross of not. Notice as was mentioned above "not MY WILL, but thine" That clearly shows me HE had a CHOICE on whether to the Cross or not, and it shows me the freedoms I also have in Him. 

My salvation is not dependant upon anything *I* do or don't do, however the depth of relationship I have with God is. God loves me whether I am living in sin or not, He loves me whether I am in Church on Sunday morning or not, His love for me is UNCONDITIONAL--it is not based on any set conditions being met on my part, it is all about HIM.

However, in order to BE in a relationship with Christ, I must meet certain conditions, admit I am a sinner, confess that sin, repent of that sin and seek God's forgiveness. But those are the conditions of relationship not God's love nor do they have anything to do with the depth of relationship I have with Christ. It is the choices I make on a day to day basis within my relationship with Christ that make the relationship stronger or not.

in other words, as a Christian, I have the freedom to choose what kind of relationship I want with God and how strong that relationship is, I personally choose to live within God's will and not my own, but I also acknowledge it is MY choice to do that and God is in no way forcing me to serve Him, love Him, or do anything for Him that I do not wish to do. 

Just as with Christ going to the Cross, He made a Choice to submit His will to God's will, God didn't force Him to do that. Remember, though He was fully God, He was also Fully Man. And as Christians, we have just as much of the Holy Spirit within us as Christ did and yet, we can still make our own choices. Good or Bad.


----------



## CalsFarmer

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> God commands men to love their wives, which to me means not asking them to do stupid things like dancing down the street singing at the top of her lungs. And no, it would not be a sin to refuse.



As always...counting on you Wayne. Thanks for being a REALIST.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> Romans922,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not in that situation to know at this time, but I could image there would be a few times in life with a spouse where a husband would ask something of his wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my husband wouldn't ask me or anyone to do something he's not willing to do himself, his idea of a leadership is someone who leads BY example, not dictatorship. And he looks at it that if he isn't willing to do it, then he isn't going to ask someone else to.
> 
> Not even Christ asks us to do things He wasn't willing to do Himself, (and not that my husband is Christ, he is Christ-like in this way) I can't imagine my husband asking me to do something he isn't willing to do himself.
> 
> So I'm curious what can you imagine a husband could ask his wife to do that he, himself wouldn't be willing to do?
> 
> I realize your not in that situation, but if you can imagine it can happen, you must have some ideas of what those things would be. So what are they? What things can you imagine asking a wife to do that you, yourself would be unwilling to do?
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-27-2005 by BJClark]
> 
> [Edited on 9-27-2005 by BJClark]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can imagine myself asking my wife to do something I would never do because I am a sinner. I never said it would be right or loving to do so. It would probably not be loving or right (but not necessarily, but that doesn't really matter), but the whole point of me saying that...is to ask the question 'What would you do?' or for me, "What would my wife do if I asked her to do something that I wouldn't do (hopefully I wouldn't do that, but what if I actually did do that)...what would she then do?" I would hope that she would obey me and moreso Christ (in not sinning, but also in obeying her husband because Christ has made him (husband) to be her head). That is the point: what would you do? obey or not obey...submit or not submit?
Click to expand...


Actually, I can see times where a spouse would ask the other to do things that they themselves would not do, merely due to the roles each is in.


----------



## bond-servant

Bobbi

There have been some interesting posts or links about free will here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9082#pid133720

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12513#pid178958

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11787#pid167599


----------



## LadyFlynt

Bobbi, it sounds as though you are creating God to be someone who waits on us and is reactionary instead of someone who has already predetermined history.

?


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> LadyFlynt,
> 
> I guess that would depend, on whether you feel a person continues to have free will (or freedom in Christ) on what choices they make within their Christian walk or not. Which is why we are more Free in Christ than we are without Him.
> 
> I am no longer under the LAW, I am under Grace. I make the choice to live within the Law or not, but I am not controlled by the law.
> 
> I certainly have a choice in deciding to get up and go to Church on Sunday Morning or not. I know that if I don't go, *I* miss out on a Blessing in my life. However, I still have a choice in the matter and I'm not going to feel guilty if I choose not to go one Sunday. Why? Because I know it is my choice to spend that time with God or Not.
> 
> I am even free to sin if I so choose, does it mean there will not be consequences if I make that choice? No, it doesn't, but I still have the freedom of choice or 'free will' to do so.
> 
> Jesus actually had a CHOICE on whether or not He died on the Cross of not. Notice as was mentioned above "not MY WILL, but thine" That clearly shows me HE had a CHOICE on whether to the Cross or not, and it shows me the freedoms I also have in Him.
> 
> My salvation is not dependant upon anything *I* do or don't do, however the depth of relationship I have with God is. God loves me whether I am living in sin or not, He loves me whether I am in Church on Sunday morning or not, His love for me is UNCONDITIONAL--it is not based on any set conditions being met on my part, it is all about HIM.
> 
> However, in order to BE in a relationship with Christ, I must meet certain conditions, admit I am a sinner, confess that sin, repent of that sin and seek God's forgiveness. But those are the conditions of relationship not God's love nor do they have anything to do with the depth of relationship I have with Christ. It is the choices I make on a day to day basis within my relationship with Christ that make the relationship stronger or not.
> 
> in other words, as a Christian, I have the freedom to choose what kind of relationship I want with God and how strong that relationship is, I personally choose to live within God's will and not my own, but I also acknowledge it is MY choice to do that and God is in no way forcing me to serve Him, love Him, or do anything for Him that I do not wish to do.
> 
> Just as with Christ going to the Cross, He made a Choice to submit His will to God's will, God didn't force Him to do that. Remember, though He was fully God, He was also Fully Man. And as Christians, we have just as much of the Holy Spirit within us as Christ did and yet, we can still make our own choices. Good or Bad.





Sorry to butt in, but I don't think Christian Liberty has anything to do with this. If you make a distinction between law and grace, doesn't necessarily matter here.

It is in Ephesians/Colossians/1 Peter where we see God command "Wives submit...". Do we have choices as Christians? Yes. Are they free? It doesn't really matter in this context. Even if we do have free will as you are defining it (I am not arguing), women are still commanded BY GOD to submit to their husbands (Husbands are commanded to love their wives). There is no CHRISTIAN LIBERTY in commandments. YOU DO IT, bottom line. We are commanded not to murder. We have the freedom to murder or not murder (ok, thats fine), but the point is we are still commanded to not murder. Therefore if one does murder, it is a sin. What is sin? You could define it as doing something not according to God's will. Well God lays down His will throughout Scripture, some of it is through commandments. Would you say that the 10 commandments are not binding today? 

So, because of Christian Liberty...(in your definition of it, you can do whatever you want) so...where sin increased, grace abouned all th emore, that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be? - Romans 5:20-6:2a

Christian Liberty doesn't allow us (or give us free will) to do whatever we want to do (sin or not sin). It gives us liberty FROM SIN! "For freedom Christ has set us free _(from sin)_; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery _(which is sin)_." Italics added for clarification of context.


[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Romans922]


----------



## Puritanhead

**Puritanhead sits idle in amusement with a smirk on his face**


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> So, because of Christian Liberty...(in your definition of it, you can do whatever you want) so...where sin increased, grace abouned all th emore, that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be? - Romans 5:20-6:2a
> 
> Christian Liberty doesn't allow us (or give us free will) to do whatever we want to do (sin or not sin). It gives us liberty FROM SIN! "For freedom Christ has set us free _(from sin)_; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery _(which is sin)_." Italics added for clarification of context.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-27-2005 by Romans922]


----------



## Puritanhead

Amazing Free Will;
how sweet the sound? 
that saved a wretched Arminian like me


----------



## bond-servant

LOL Ryan


----------



## LadyFlynt

Your original post:



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> Those who say it doesn't matter if the hubby is in sin or not, but that what matters is that the wife submits if it isn't sin for her ~
> 
> The idea that a woman is not in sin by doing something foolish at the demand of her husband (assuming his intent is to abuse his leadership, showing clear disregard and unconcern for his wife's HEART) is hard for me to grasp. I wonder....is she encouraging HIS sin by doing so? in my opinion, this isn't an across the board issue. There will be times she can submit to something even knowing her dh has a wrong motive etc. but there are times when she must not.



Yes, she must not when it would be a sin against God to do so.



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> Let's take another example. Husband is a drunk. TELLS wife to drink with him, _not get "drunk"_" but have some wine while he get's blasted. So according to this mindset, she is to submit (assuming here that she has no "conviction" against general alcohol consumption) because partaking alchohol is not a sin (drunkeness is), therefore for her, she *must* submit to his request.



I've already answered this...there is no harm in her sipping a glass of wine at his request...whether he be a drunk or not. As she is not sinning and has no convictions against it, I do not see how she is encouraging his sin. Particularly when she has probably confronted him on his sin and he is the one insisting already aware of her feelings on the issue. To assist in his drunkeness would be for her to be drinking when he is trying not to or to take it up herself.



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> The argument that a wife submits in "everything" regardless of the man's sin in requiring her to is an interesting argument being that the word used to support this thought does not exclude those things that are sinful....we obviously (and rightly) imply it based upon the rest of scripture...which is my point - the word itself does not literally MEAN "everything"... another example of why we do not isolate scripture from context or build a theology around an obscure verse etc. So we already KNOW and agree that it can't mean "everything". When I have time, I plan to study this entire passage out more deeply, but this is my initial thought on it.



Okay, waiting to hear. However, all things would be all things that are not contrary to God's commands.



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> The marriage relationship is compared to Christ and the Church. That's where we look to come to a proper view of headshiip and submission. It is not controller/controllee. Relationship is inherrent.



No one stated it was controller/controllee. It is where one is in authority and the other is not.



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> Where is the biblical support for the idea that "a wife is to submit if it is not sin, otherwise, her refusal to submit to any request not inherently 'sinful' IS sin, regardless of the husbands sin in requiring it"?



The scripture states to obey in all things. It does not state to obey only when our husbands hearts are right.



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> Sin is not OUTSIDE of our hearts. If my dh told me to dance and sing in the street, it would hurt me that he would expect me to, as I would feel he does not care or love me very much to make me do such a thing, cause me extreme embarrassement and shame, and seriously mar my testimony for Christ to those who see it. But I guess, because those are heart issues or problems/sins in me (because I should do it cheerfully regardless), I must "get over it", since the act itself is devoid of sin (ie. dancing and singing in the street is not sin) and do it anyway, or I would be a rebellious and disobedient wife.



This has been addressed already. 1) you have the right of appeal 2) it reflects more upon your husband than upon you...however, God never said that he wouldn't put us in embarrasing situations and there are ways of handling them graciously. (BJClark comes to mind  )



> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> I don't get it (and for those who may be wondering, neither does my dh).



Mayhaps you should read testamonies of those that are or have fought for their marriages in this way.

Women of Faith
Marriage Restoration sites
"Daughters of Sarah" book
"Grace Enough" book


----------



## BJClark

LadyFlynt,

Please do not take what I said as insulting, I did not mean it that way,

And you actually do not know what I consider being a servant or a doormat, I've been both. As a previous doormat, I certainly didn't feel I had a choice in anything, if my Now ex-husband said 'Don't go to church', I didn't go to church under the belief I was being 'submissive' to what he wanted. When he wanted to me to stop associating with my Christian lady friends, I stopped, again under the belief *I* was being submissive, when the reality was I actually DID have a choice in whether I went to church and who to fellowship with as God led me, why because God isn't going to tell me NOT to fellowship with other believers, but even in his asking me NOT to do those things he wasn't technically asking me to sin or even do something sinful, but he certainly wasn't leading me TO God by asking me not to go to church, and not fellowshipping with other female believers. I was in essence putting my husband's will before what I knew God's will was for my life, and basically placing Him before God in my life. So again, please do not take what I said as an insult. 





> Well, then I guess I could only tell you what we all have to do in that situation. Pray that the Lord changes your heart and attitude. We all deal with it, we aren't perfect, but it doesn't excuse us from at the very least obeying externally while we work on the internal. Scripture speaks much about obligations. This prevents us from making excuses for wrong actions based on emotions.



Actually, my attitude has been changed greatly by God over the past few years, as has my relationship with Him grown by leaps and bounds, by recognizing the choices and freedoms I actually have, in realizing that God's will comes even before my husband's will, and I follow God first.





> Here is where you are leaning away from reformed teachings. Proverbs 16:9 "a man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps" There is also a verse that states that no man seeketh after the Lord. (having trouble with my SwordSearcher right now) and that it is the Lord that draweth the heart. God isn't sitting there just waiting for us to WANT Him. He actually CREATES that desire.



I believe I said God gives us that desire.


> We are not puppets on a string. But, He wants us to CHOOSE to serve Him, He wants us to WANT to serve Him out of our Love for Him, out of the very Love He has placed in us through the Holy Spirit.





> As Christine stated...Christ said that he would rather the cup be taken from him...but he submitted to the Will of the Father. And it sounds like the love you are talking about is the emotional love...not the love found in Scripture. Emotions ebb and flow. They change. I don't always "feel" like "loving" my husband or others. However, I "Love" them as in that I do that which is commanded of my by God...I support, take care of, want and do what is best for, etc. This is the love that is commanded...this is the love that Christ showed when he died on the cross.



Actually, no I'm not refering to emotional love, I'm refering to unconditional love, the love you have for someone that gives others the freedom to make choices, good or bad, and yet you love them anyway even if you don't agree with their decisions. 

It's the same love that has allowed me to truly forgive a man who molested me my entire childhood, and desire to have a relationship with him today. As I realized God allowed Him to CHOOSE to sin or not, just as God allows me to make the same choice, to sin or not. It is the same love that has allowed me to see this man as God does, a sinner in need of a Savior, JUST like ME. It's the same love that has allowed me to see my own sin as JUST as BAD as this man's sin, and worthy of my own death and eternal seperation from God. Even though our choice of sin has been different, it was still sin, and still worthy of the same death and eternal damnation. (and even more pointedly, allows me to truly see myself the same as I see Him, equally a Sinner in need of a Savior)

I have learned His sin was not greater than mine, and my sin is not less than his, just different sins, but again, worthy of the same hell fire and damnation and eternal seperation from God. And again, just as I had a choice to sin or not, so did he. 

So, no, it is not an emotional love I am speaking of, but a love God has brought me through a great deal of pain to understand and appreciate.

And when others say women don't have a choice, but to submit or even to serve God, based on what God has taught me, I have to disagree, we always have a choice to choose to follow and submit to God and or our husbands or Not.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by BJClark]

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## bond-servant

"The scripture states to obey in all things. It does not state to obey only when our husbands hearts are right."

Absolutely! !!!!!! !

The only exception I could possibly think of would be where his request clearly violated God's moral law as well as government's law: as in a command "here, go murder someone" or "go rob that bank". 

In this case I believe God's heirarchy of authority comes into effect. And if I had to guess since 99.99% of cases do not fall into the exception catagory, especially for the people on this board, I'd say the point is moot. 

hmmm...Can you telll I'm in a rambling mood? Can I blame it on my chocolate shake?


----------



## LadyFlynt

BJ,

I didn't take you too strongly on the "brain check" statement...I threw is back to show how needless and out there it was. Not really offended.

Please see Romans' post on Christian Liberty.

As far as being a doormat vs servant...there are women on here who DO understand in similar manners that you do. However, do not let what was FORCED on you affect how you view scriptural commands. We are speaking of requests here. Neither are we saying that you have to obey under ALL conditions. We stated the condition...would it be sinning against God to obey your husband in his request?

RABBIT TRAIL:
I'm still a bit concerned though. You stated that Christ could have chosen to disobey the Father. How so, considering that the Son and the Father are in constant agreement? It is not possible for the trinity to disagree when they are one. How is it that you would view that Christ's "decision" was what all was dependant upon? Did not God predetermine all things as they would happen from before the beginning?


----------



## BJClark

LadyFlynt,




> As far as being a doormat vs servant...there are women on here who DO understand in similar manners that you do. However, do not let what was FORCED on you affect how you view scriptural commands. We are speaking of requests here. Neither are we saying that you have to obey under ALL conditions. We stated the condition...would it be sinning against God to obey your husband in his request?



And even asking that I not go to church or ending Christian female friendships was not asking me to sin against God, yet the reasons he asked was because of his own sin. And I submitted (based on the teaching that a wife must submit in EVERY THING, as was taught in the church I had previously attended, the preacher even told me I was sinning if I went to Church, because I would be going against my husband and yes, He even confronted him and he chose to ignore them) and by my not following God first, I was not being fed, I was in essence starving Spiritually.

Someone mentioned is it a sin for a wife not to drink with her husband if he asks her to, well, is he going to church? Will your drinking with him lead him to Christ? I would say NO; That was one of the many issues in my previous marriage, he wanted me to drink along side him, and I again submitted to him in this area, it led me back into a sin from which God delivered me years ago. But then again, to not submit to my husband in EVERY THING was also a sin. I finally said NO to drinking with him and God blessed that decision, and my struggle to quit was not long.

I personally believe that by submitting in that area you are in fact enabling his sin, you are in essence telling him that you agree with that choice, when in fact you don't. 



> I'm still a bit concerned though. You stated that Christ could have chosen to disobey the Father. How so, considering that the Son and the Father are in constant agreement? It is not possible for the trinity to disagree when they are one. How is it that you would view that Christ's "decision" was what all was dependant upon? Did not God predetermine all things as they would happen from before the beginning?



Because Christ was fully man, He could have chosen to disobey, He would not have had to prove to us with His Temptations in the Garden that it is possible to overcome sin with the Help of the Holy Spirit, it was because He was also fully God and filled with the Holy Spirit, that He didn't give in to those temptations. And because He knew what was required of Him from the beginning of time to reconcile us with Himself, He submitted to the will of God the Father.

But even beyond that, God could have very easily chosen from the beginning of time to destroy mankind and not send a Savior at all.
He could have very easily chosen to send us all to hell for eternity, but in In His grace and mercy He Chose to reconcile us with Himself by coming and paying our sin debt for us. But He didn't HAVE to do that. Did He? 
I don't believe that He had to.


----------



## pastorway

> Because Christ was fully man, He could have chosen to disobey



Sorry - but this is not true. Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time. And as God He cannot sin. And as a man, He was born with a human nature, but not a sinful nature. He never could have sinned for He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. So to say that He could have disobeyed God in the Garden is to say at any time from eternity past until eternity future that Jesus Christ is capable of choosing to sin. But God CANNOT sin. Ever.

Yes He was tempted. But He did not have a "choice" in the matter of His crucifixion as all of that was determined before the world began. When He says that He will do the Father's will over and above His own will, He is saying that as a man his flesh did not want to die (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak), but as God He knew what He was doing and why He was doing it (Heb 12:2). He was not making a choice. He was living by faith! Denying Himself, and taking up His cross. And He tells us to likewise follow Him.

Bottom line, to say that Jesus could have disobeyed the Father is to say that He Himself was not God. I am sure no one on this board would ever say that Jesus was not God.....

Phillip

[Edited on 9-28-05 by pastorway]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Actually, Christ was showing that it is natural for a human being to not want to die, that at the same time we are to be in complete submission as he was when he prayed to the Father. He submitted all that the Father's Will be accomplished. It was not to show that he was making a choice.

You're right in that God could do whatever He wanted. But He has made known to us that the end was determined from before the beginning. Again, he is not a reactionary God.

We do make choices. However, our choices should be based on God's Word.

Perhaps, due to it being a previous issue for you, it was a sin for you to drink. That was not the case in the example given however.

On the church issue...I do believe we are called to assemble ourselves together. However, the prevention of attending services alone is not what would starve a person spiritually. How many people throughout the world are unable to attend a church and yet are more fed than many of us who are in church everytime the doors are open? The Word should be our primary feeding. Honestly, there was a time not long ago that I had no friends, lived in the middle of the cornfields, and we had no church to go to...add to that the fact that my husband worked from before I got up till after I was in bed and I, with two wee ones, was responsible for 3acres and laundry done by a wringer washer (cloth diapers and all). We were at the time being shunned and abandoned. Yet this is the time that I clung to my Savior stronger than ever.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Romans922




----------



## BJClark

puritangirl,




> Just because I may want to sleep in on a Sunday morning and forsake the gathering together of the people of the Lord doesn't mean that I can, because it's the Lord's Day and I have an obligation to keep the Sabbath holy.



Are the Sabbath and the Lords day one and the same? I don't believe they are. 

Sabbath:

[Heb.,=repose], in Judaism, last day of the week (Saturday), observed as a rest day for the twenty-five hours commencing with sundown on Friday. In the biblical account of creation (Gen. 1) the seventh day is set as a Sabbath to mark God's rest after his work. In Jewish law, starting with both versions of the Ten Commandments, the rules for the Sabbath are given in careful detail. 

Early Christians had a weekly celebration of the liturgy on the first day (Sunday), observing the Resurrection.

So I have to ask what does getting up on Sunday Morning and going to Church have to do with the keeping the Sabbath Holy, when in reality it has nothing to do with the Sabbath at all, but more to do with observing the resurrection? 




> Just because I may want to give into my flesh and be impure before marriage doesn't mean I can, because otherwise I would be breaking the law of God and committing adultury.



Sure you can, you just choose not too, there is a difference. I'm not saying your wrong not to, I'm just saying you still have a CHOICE on if you will or not. 



> Just because I may not understand or agree with my husband when he asks something of me does not mean I don't have to do it, because I am commanded by God to submit to my husband.



So you don't submit to your husband because you want to, but only because you are commanded to? My understanding of submission is that it is a choice.

"Submit is a verb. Submitting is a voluntary action. Submission is a choice we make. It´s something each one of us must decide to do. And this decision happens first in the heart. If we don´t decide in our hearts that we are going to willingly submit to whomever it is we need to be submitted to, then we are not truly submitting. Submission is a matter of trusting in God more than trusting in man."

"Too often people confuse "œsubmit" with "œobey." But they are not the same thing. The Bible gives commands about obeying other people only in regard to children and slaves, and in the context of the local church.
Since a wife is neither her husband´s child nor his servant, and the local church isn´t part of a marriage, the word "œobey" has no application to the relationship between a husband and a wife."




> But your identity in Christ and as a Christian will directly affect the kind of wife you are. You will either be the kind of wife who doesn't care what the Bible has to say but instead views her relationship with her husband as a "team" and a "partnership" (the world's view), or you will listen to the Word of God and humbly accept your place as a wife.



You don't believe a husband and wife are a team who works together, Like a pair of oxen who are yoked together? (be ye not unequally yoked)

That is how I picture marriage, my husband and I yoked together as a team with Christ in control of the reins. There is a lead and a partner yoked together like with a wooden frame resting on the shoulder of each ox, with a bar and oxbow at each end so they could pull together as a team.

Christ being in control of the reins can turn the lead ox in which ever direction He desires them to go, and the partner follows because that is the direction the one in control of the reins is turning them. The partner ox is not trusting the lead ox to lead them, but is trusting in the one who controls the reins and It is His commands they submit to.

And I honestly don't know why people assume I have an issue with submitting to Christ or His Command to submit to my husband, just because I recognize it as MY CHOICE to submit or not, just as each and every one of us have the same Choice to Submit to Christ or not. 

Just because we are Christians doesn't mean we can't still choose to sin and ignore the prompting of the Holy Spirit on our hearts.


----------



## BJClark

> Actually, I can see times where a spouse would ask the other to do things that they themselves would not do, merely due to the roles each is in.



And they would be?

I'm serious here, what would a spouse not be willing to do if they had the ability and the means to do it themselves, but just would not do it under any circumstances, but would in turn ask their spouse to do it?


----------



## bond-servant

Our own Dr. Matthew McMahon has a great article on the myth of free will on his site here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/WalterChantryMythOfFreeWill.htm


----------



## LadyFlynt

Webster's1828

SUBMIS'SION, n. [L. submissio, from submitto.]

1. The act of submitting; the act of yielding to power or authority; surrender of the person and power to the control or government of another.

Submission, dauphin! 'tis a mere French word;

We English warriors wot not what it means.

2. Acknowledgment of inferiority or dependence; humble or suppliant behavior.

In all submission and humility,

York doth present himself unto your highness.

3. Acknowledgment of a fault; confession or error.

Be not as extreme in submission, as in offense.

4. Obedience; compliance with the commands or laws of a superior. Submission of children to their parents is an indispensable duty.

5. Resignation; a yielding of one's will to the will or appointment of a superior without murmuring. Entire and cheerful submission to the will of God is a christian duty of prime excellence.

It is an action...one that God has placed as the duty of wives to husbands.


----------



## 5solasmom

Colleen, no worries! I've been known to debate passionately too....

And Beth, thanks for the kind welcome!

You said if I think I have something to contribute to go ahead and do so. I did not plan to jump back in here, but something has me scratching my head and my curiousity is getting the best of me. 


Thank you for attempting to answer and comment on my previous comments. There is still an assumption that disobedience is taking place, which is what I'm calling into question to begin with. Forgive my seemingly beating a dead horse statement again... - Question coming down to, "Is it ALWAYS disobedient if we do not obey a dh's command (assuming we have graciously appealed and he does not change his demand) when obeying does not specifically break a command of God?". My position is that it is not. Yours is that it is.

Taking this principle of "We must obey unless it breaks a command of God", how then is it consistent to say that physical abuse IS an exception? How is receiving physical abuse breaking a command of God? I think there is stronger support scripturally for actually TAKING the abuse. I do not believe the support is addressing marriage, and I do not believe a woman has to recieve physical abuse either, but I am curious as to how that is consistent with your premise? And if physical abuse is an exception to the rule, why not emotional abuse as well? 

The point I am making is that you are holding a position that says there is no exception to submission UNLESS it specifically breaks a command of God. My point is that that is not so (i.e. the "excellent" argument as an example). So how then is it consistent to say that _physical abuse_*is* an exception? Do you have scriptural support for that? 

And to establish my position again, since I think there is an assumption that I am saying it's "OKAY" to disobey God (i.e. question as to "how far" I'm willing to rebel when I am not speaking of rebelling)...that is not what I have said. My question is still....is it ALWAYS sin not to obey a dh's command if that command is not in violation to a law of God". You have said yes. In order to maintain that consistency, you must then believe it is wrong for her to disobey him if he tells her to stand in the corner while he beats her with a bat (unless you can prove scirpturally that recieving a beating is a sin against a command of God).

We both believe physcial abuse is not an area we must submit in. So you have established my point. There _are_ exceptions.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by 5solasmom]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Physical Abuse is illegal...both to our Nations Laws and according to how Scripture says we are to deal with eachother.

From Dr. Laura and the Chaplain of the Glenburn Evangelical Covenant Church in Glenburn, Maine (Granted on the 5th Commandment, but it would also apply here):

When (parents)....break civil and moral laws or jeopardize life and limb of innocent "neighbors," you are required to stand between (them) and those laws or innocents. This may indeed mean that authorities must be notified. The chaplain of the Glenburn Evangelical Covenant Church in Glenburn, Maine, wrote in this regard: _Since honor does not mean unquestioned obedience, we truely honor (our parents) when we hold them accountable to God's law. If my (parents) abandon me, I will honor them by seeking, though no forcing, reconciliation. If my (parents) abuse me, I will honor them by praying for them, so that they might see their error--and by escaping, if possible, so that they cannot continue to sin upon me. If my (parents) are unfaithful, I will honor them by calling for righteousness and by being willing to forgive them when they repent. If they are breaking the law, and refuse to heed my warnings, I will honor them by calling the police. Making them accountable to the highest moral order is honoring them in that I esteem them capable of responsible action."_

BTW, I've had to face at least two of these issues with my mother and step-father. And I believe this would apply if you replaced "parents" with husband or spouse.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> Forgive my seemingly beating a dead horse statement again...



BTW, we've abused this smiley  on a regular basis on this board...the reason we don't see him much anymore...I think he's escaped us. :bigsmile:

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## bond-servant

Ah, it has come down to physical abuse again. The 'submission' conversations always do....

Abuse is close to my heart. I ministered in the projects for several years and saw very abused women, whom the law could not fully protect without a divorce. They could only issue restraining orders and warrents and such. Many times this was inadequate to protect her.I'll get back to that. First, let me quote from a Prebyterian position paper on divorce when there is physical abuse:

In a paper presented to the Philadelphia Presbytery and included as an appendix to this report, W. S. Barker draws the following conclusions.
"œTo a direct question of whether physical abuse could be a grounds for divorce, the Puritan tradition informing the Westminster Assembly would have answered, No, not per se or by itself. William Perkins and William Ames before the Westminster Assembly, William Gouge as a member of the Assembly, and Richard Baxter soon after the Assembly are all consistent with Calvin and Beza and the Genevan tradition in emphasizing adultery as the essential cause for divorce.
"œThis same Puritan tradition also saw that under certain circumstances desertion could be a grounds for divorce, and physical abuse could be the basis of a desertion, the spouse guilty of the abuse being reputed as the deserter even though the other may have departed. Before such a situation could be the grounds for a divorce, however, a sufficient time would have to expire for the efforts of both church and civil magistrate to seek to achieve a reconciliation."
In any case, it is important to note both the broad agreement and the narrow scope both of identifiable disagreement and of remaining questions. The entire Reformed church held that marriage vows were generally indissoluble, that only a few vicious crimes against the marital covenant constituted grounds for divorce, that many alleged grounds lacked Biblical justification, that incompatibility was by no means a ground of divorce, that every effort was to be made to preserve a marriage and that divorce was always an unwelcome extremity, that adultery conferred upon the innocent party the right of divorce and remarriage, and, that, in certain extreme cases, the innocent victims of marital abandonment are released from their obligations to the marriage. Possible, though still strictly circumscribed, constructions of marital abandonment and whether in such cases a right of remarriage is conferred on the innocent spouse seem genuinely details of interpretation, differences which were insufficient to undermine the Reformed consensus on marriage and divorce.

Again, I tend to believe that there are some instances where divorce is justified in some cases of physical abuse where adequate protection cannot be given when the couple seperates. The laws very here state-state. 

God's mercy extended even to the female slave , where if her master took away from her food and clothing when he married, that she could go free:

Exo 21:10 "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 
Exo 21:11 "If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. 

Even here God shows mercy and protection. That said, I think these cases are very, very far and few in between.

The best thing she can do is stay away or seperate if he will not go to counciling. These are the most biblical options.

Extrememe cases of abuse is not however directly relevant to submission in daily living.


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Physical Abuse is illegal...both to our Nations Laws and according to how Scripture says we are to deal with eachother.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-28-2005 by LadyFlynt]



Excellent point.


----------



## 5solasmom

It is illegal for the husband, not the wife. He is breaking both a command of God and a civil command. 

But my point is, the wife is not. He is not asking HER to break a command of God or a civil law by taking abuse. This is getting down to nitty gritty specifics I know, but this is the whole point. We cannot use this principle in EVERY single scenario.

Colleen, I understand your points on submission and for the most part I agree with them. However, I think the idea that we always obey dh unless it violates one of the commands of God (shall/shall not) cannot literally be applied across the board with every thing (physical abuse is one example). There are times we must not submit to him even if the demand does not directly break a law of God to do. It may, like the singing in the street one scenario, be foolish, a poor witness to Christ, or even (which I failed to say) violate the wife's own conscience (to him who knows what is right and does not do it is sin for him).

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Arch2k

Physical abuse is also a violation of the sixth commandment.



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> Q135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> A135: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, *to preserve the life of ourselves * [1] and others [2] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[3] subduing all passions,[4] and avoiding all occasions,[5] temptations,[6] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[7] *by just defense thereof against violence*,[8] patient bearing of the hand of God,[9] quietness of mind,[10] cheerfulness of spirit;[11] a sober use of meat,[12] drink,[13] physic,[14] sleep,[15] labor,[16] and recreations;[17] by charitable thoughts,[18] love,[19] compassion,[20] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[21] peaceable,[22] mild and courteous speeches and behavior;[23] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[24] comforting and succoring the distressed, and *protecting and defending the innocent*.[25]
> 
> 1. Eph. 5:28-29
> 2. I Kings 18:4
> 3. Jer. 26:15-16; Acts 23:12, 16-17, 21, 27
> 4. Eph. 4:26-27
> 5. II Sam. 2:22; Deut. 22:8
> 6. Matt. 4:6-7; Prov. 1:10-11, 15-16
> 7. I Sam. 24:2; 26:9-11; Gen. 37:21-22
> 8. Psa. 82:4; Prov. 24:11-12; I Sam. 14:45
> 9. James 5:7-11; Heb. 12:9
> 10. I Thess. 4:11; I Peter 3:3-4; Psa. 37:8-11
> 11. Prov. 17:22
> 12. Prov. 25:16, 27
> 13. I Tim. 5:23
> 14. Isa. 38:21
> 15. Psa. 127:2
> 16. Eccl. 5:12; II Thess. 3:10, 12; Prov. 16:26
> 17. Eccl. 3:4, 11
> 18. I Sam. 19:4-5; 22:13-14
> 19. Rom. 13:10
> 20. Luke 10:33-34
> 21. Col. 3:12-13
> 22. James 3:17
> 23. I Peter 3:8-11; Prov. 15:1; Judg. 8:1-3
> 24. Matt. 5:24; Eph. 4:2, 32; Rom. 12:17, 20-21
> 25. I Thess. 5:14; Job 31:19-20; Matt. 25:35-36; Prov. 31:8-9


----------



## 5solasmom

Physical abuse is relevant to the principle you are holding to. It still remains inconsistent with the principle itself because it does not violate a command of God to be abused. 

The physical abuse is NOT the point. The point is that you hold an exception that cannot be supported by your own rule.

So are you saying that receiving abuse violates a command of God (recieving it, NOT giving it)?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The Fifth Commandment duty of submission does not trump the Sixth Commandment duty of preservation of life (sin prohibited by the Sixth Commandment per WLC #136: "the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life").


----------



## LadyFlynt

I honestly do not see how it has not been supported. The wife's actions in such a case (ie removing herself from the abuse) is upheld by other commands as has been pointed out.

I will be facing a similar situation soon in regards to laws in conflict. PA's homeschool law is in conflict with their Religious Freedom Protection Act. I will be appealing to one law to protect myself from the intrusion of the other. Which is precisely what we are pointing to here. You stated that we can't take this verse on submission by itself where certain cases are concerned. You're right. Thus the appeal to other laws found in scripture.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Again, I tend to believe that there are some instances where divorce is justified in some cases of physical abuse where adequate protection cannot be given when the couple seperates. The laws very here state-state.



This is where it is the laws of the land that are lacking. To go back to scriptural times, one could be stoned for such. (where's that stoning avatar I saw a few months back?)


----------



## BJClark

5solasmom,

I am reminded of Christ being beaten, spit on, and hung on a cross, Even He endured the most vile of abuses, and yet submitted and spoke not a word. So you are right, it does not violate God's commands to stand there and be beaten. He even loved those who were beating Him.



> Physical abuse is relevant to the principle you are holding to. It still remains inconsistent with the principle itself because it does not violate a command of God to be abused.
> 
> The physical abuse is NOT the point. The point is that you hold an exception that cannot be supported by your own rule.
> 
> So are you saying that receiving abuse violates a command of God (recieving it, NOT giving it)?



[Edited on 9-28-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## pastorway

Reading through this I have a question.....

IF it is part of submission for a wife to accept abuse from her husband let's exapnd this a bit.

What if the husband begins abusing the children?

Is the wife to submit and allow that to continue?

Are the children supposed to allow it to happen without saying a word since they are commanded to obey and honor their parents?

Think about it. If an abused wife should just take abuse from her husband then she should also not interfere if he is abusing the children, and that is ridiculous.

No offense - but the whole idea that submission means to take abuse is a severe misunderstanding of what the Bible means when it tells a wife to submit to her husband. To submit is to follow his lead, it is not to put herself in harms way - that is not following a leader, that is yielding to a tyrant.

Jesus took abuse, and in cases of presecution there are times that we take abuse - but abuse from a spouse cannot be accepted under the guise of submission.

As an elder, when I counsel couples, if there is abuse, then I urge separation until we work through those issues for the safety of all involved. I prefer the wife to go live with a family in the church until the husband has repented and resolved the issue.

Phillip


----------



## LadyFlynt




----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> As an elder, when I counsel couples, if there is abuse, then I urge separation until we work through those issues for the safety of all involved. I prefer the wife to go live with a family in the church until the husband has repented and resolved the issue.
> 
> Phillip


----------



## Arch2k

Phillip,

I don't think that Bobbi is suggesting that a women be submissive in an abusive situation, she is just using that as an example to show that the woman does not ALWAYS have to submit to her husband. I believe that she is trying to show that an abusive situation (the receiving end) is not sinful to stay in, but "common sense" (?) says she should leave.

However, this is not the case. Tolerating abuse is sin. It has been shown above that it would be violating the sixth commandment for a woman to "submit" to abuse. *Therefore*, the attempt to show that a woman does not have to submit in all lawful instances DOES NOT FOLLOW.

*It is a woman's duty to submit at ALL times UNLESS it violates a higher law (i.e. the law of the land, or the law of God).*

If some of you believe that this is NOT true, and there are OTHER instances of refusal to submit, I beg you, what rules are there to DETERMINE when you should, and when you should not submit to your husband?


----------



## pastorway

Just to clalify too - submission is placing yourself under ones authority, in this case, to serve as a help-mate - meaning that this is God's design for the family for the man to lead and the woman to help. Submission does not mean that the wife has no say, that she must do everything the husband tells her to do, that she is not a partner in the marriage, that she cannot think on her own and for herself, or that every decision should be left to the husband and his word is final!

Submission means that she lovingly places herself in his care and under his leadership, serves as a help-mate, encourages discussion with the goal of the family as a whole making wise decisions, and while being submissive she has the ability to appeal his decisions! It also means that the husband can delegate areas of "control" to her and she is still being submissive.

When a wife submits that does not make the man a Lone Ranger in the marriage. It means that he has someone helping him fulfill his God given role as a leader.

The perfect example is that in my marriage (and in my life) I am horrible with finances! I cannot balance a checkbook to save my life. I took Greek and Hebrew not College Algebra and Trig! So I asked my wife to take over the finances because she is a math whiz and a frugal shopper to boot. When I had "control" of the finances we kept bouncing checks and never knew how much money we had in the bank. Now things are much better. She helps me by taking on this responsibility since she is better at it than I am! 

Phillip


----------



## Arch2k




----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> *It is a woman's duty to submit at ALL times UNLESS it violates a higher law (i.e. the law of the land, or the law of God).*



This one sentence pretty much perfectly summarizes many posts. Thank you.  

Yes, there are circumstances where a woman may need to seek protection, and in theses cases both God's law and gov't law is being broken. 

Scripture is clear on submission. 

btw: Pastorway, I liked your example...


----------



## LadyFlynt

excellent posts!

BTW, Pastorway...hubby will feel better knowing that it's not only him on the balancing checkbook things....(my head hurts when he takes it over)


----------



## 5solasmom

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Phillip,
> 
> I don't think that Bobbi is suggesting that a women be submissive in an abusive situation, she is just using that as an example to show that the woman does not ALWAYS have to submit to her husband. I believe that she is trying to show that an abusive situation (the receiving end) is not sinful to stay in, but "common sense" (?) says she should leave.
> 
> However, this is not the case. Tolerating abuse is sin. It has been shown above that it would be violating the sixth commandment for a woman to "submit" to abuse. *Therefore*, the attempt to show that a woman does not have to submit in all lawful instances DOES NOT FOLLOW.
> 
> *It is a woman's duty to submit at ALL times UNLESS it violates a higher law (i.e. the law of the land, or the law of God).*
> 
> If some of you believe that this is NOT true, and there are OTHER instances of refusal to submit, I beg you, what rules are there to DETERMINE when you should, and when you should not submit to your husband?



I am sorry but I cannot see how the sixth commandment is being violated if a woman endured abuse from her husband. HE is violating it 100%, and as someone stated earlier, a woman is to submit to her dh even if HE is in sin in his request. I read the WCF and looked up the verses. None of them state that it is WRONG for someone to endure abuse. We can go through scripture and pull out all kinds of verses that would tell us the opposite. If enduring abuse is sin for the one being abused, then Christ sinned by allowing others to abuse Him.

Rules to determine when you should not submit - 

If it violates the law of God.
If it violates the conscience.
If it's not an issue of "submission/obedience" at all.


----------



## 5solasmom

http://www.cbmw.org/resources/books/headship.pdf


Headship, Submission and the Bible
by
Jack Cottrell

Linked to this from Monergism. com. Of interest to our discussion is pgs 98-106.


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> 
> 
> Rules to determine when you should not submit -
> 
> If it violates the law of God.
> If it violates the conscience.
> If it's not an issue of "submission/obedience" at all.



I understand where you are coming from, but if we are talking about extremes here,... what if it is against her concience to go to church, but her husband tells her they will go to church as a family. Or, what if she does not agree with the Bibllical principle of tithing, and thinks that her husband misunderstands Scripture and that he is wasting thier money... should she disobey him and hold back her own earnings if she has them? See what I mean.... this is a slippery slope....


----------



## pastorway

Simply put, taking abuse is not an act of submission. It puts your life and health in danger.

Really, this logic and this misunderstanding of submission will lead to a wife thinking it is her duty to sit by and watch while the husband beats the kids. If she cannot intervene for herself and must just take it as an act of submission then she would be just as wrong to try and protect her children. If the husband, in this case, is determined to abuse then to submit to abuse (which simply and plainly cannot be done, you do not submit to abuse) is to allow the husband to beat whomever he desires. And to try to stop him would be equated with rebellion and lack of submission.

This case cannot be supported by Scripture because the Bible never equates being persecuted or abused with the role of a wife in submission to her husband. Submission has nothing to do with allowing the "head" to do whatever he wants. If he sins, it is not an act of submission to be on the receiving end of that sin.

Bottom line - this exposes a very serious misunderstanding of what it means to submit.

Phillip

[Edited on 9-29-05 by pastorway]


----------



## 5solasmom

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Simply put, taking abuse is not an act of submission. It puts your life and health in danger.
> 
> Really, this logic and this misunderstanding of submission will lead to a wife thinking it is her duty to sit by and watch while the husband beats the kids. If she cannot intervene for herself and must just take it as an act of submission then she would be just as wrong to try and protect her children. If the husband, in this case, is determined to abuse then to submit to abuse (which simply and plainly cannot be done, you do not submit to abuse) is to allow the husband to beat whomever he desires. And to try to stop him would be equated with rebellion and lack of submission.
> 
> This case cannot be supported by Scripture because the Bible never equates being persecuted or abused with the role of a wife in submission to her husband. *Submission has nothing to do with allowing the "head" to do whatever he wants.* If he sins, it is not an act of submission to be on the receiving end of that sin.
> 
> Bottom line - this exposes a very serious misunderstanding of what it means to submit.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> [Edited on 9-29-05 by pastorway]



I fully agree. Taking abuse is not a submission or obedience issue. 

My hearts desire and posture is to submit in heart and action to my dh. That means when he makes a decision I think might be unwise, after I give my input gently, if he still says his way, I am to submit. 

It's a harder pill to swallow however, if a dh desires to shame and ridicule his wife by making her do something that would be both embarrassing and a poor/confusing testimony to Christ. There is a sense in which - is that an obedience/submission isssue? I fully agree that submission has nothing to do with allowing the head to do whatever he wants.

A verse I read today...

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
Proverbs 26:4-5

So if her husband is making foolish, unreasonable demands of her, it seems the precident here is that she should respond with biblical wisdom - not foolish like him, but cautiously and lovingly. She is not bound to "obey" the unreasonable demand (i.e. the dead horse dancing in the street example, lol). Am I reading this wrong???


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> if a dh desires to shame and ridicule his wife by making her do something that would be both embarrassing and a poor/confusing testimony to Christ.



In continuing the extremes (yet, however, an excuse I've heard to be used in a very loose manner):

What if the husband truely is convicted on an issue, requests/insists the action to be taken by the wife, but she _feels_ it's shaming her and going to bring ridicule to her, because she's embarrassed and believes it to be a poor testimony to do so...he believes otherwise?

(Yes, I'm thinking of a specific issue)


----------



## bond-servant

Good mornign ladies! 

It boils down to this:  

1) Submission does not mean taking abuse, or letting your husband abuse your children

2) If the husband demoralizes the wife verbally and emotionally but not physcially, with constant comments like "you're stupid, or your a *bad word*" then the two possible courses of action is to stay (I have a dear friend that has stayed in marriage like that for 43 years. He is an unbeliever. She is a believer. A true Christian woulnd not do this) or 2) to seperate if needed, get church intervention, and get counciling.

3) The Scripture is clear for women to submit to your husbands, unless he is asking you to break governement and God's own laws.

4) There aren't really any in betweens. We must trust God's way is best in "normal" circumstances as well as extreme circumstances.

When we begin to try to catagorize exceptions, we end n up on really slippery slopes:
If we say we should only submit if it does not violate our concience: what if OUR concience is wrong, and his is right?
If we say we should only submit if his requests don't shame us? What if it is that we would only feel shame at his request because of a matter of our heart?


Does this about sum it all up?


----------



## Arch2k

Beth!

Good post


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> When we begin to try to catagorize exceptions, we end n up on really slippery slopes:
> If we say we should only submit if it does not violate our concience: what if OUR concience is wrong, and his is right?
> If we say we should only submit if his requests don't shame us? What if it is that we would only feel shame at his request because of a matter of our heart?
> 
> 
> Does this about sum it all up?


----------



## BJClark

pastorway,

I fully understand taking abuse is not an act of submission, though there are people who teach that it is, I know I've heard it first hand, and I also know it comes with a Child's understanding of Biblical teachings, or more aptly put a lack of spiritual growth in those who teach that.

Which is why I say a women doesn't leave her brain or her Christianity at the door when she marries. A women can choose not to submit to her husband in certain areas, she really does have a choice. 

Like with what happened in my previous marriage, where my husband didn't want me going to church. I have learned I actually did have the choice to submit in that area or not and in either circumstance I would not have been sinning. 

Had I chosen to go anyway, I would have been following God in "not forsaking the gathering together with saints" and with chosing to submit I still would have been following God in "submitting to my husband in everything" (even in areas of disagreement). But at the time I did not understand that, and it didn't help that the Pastor of the church we had attended at the time also said It would be a sin for me to go against my husband by going to church. And I questioned HIM at the time as well, "Shouldn't what God says about 'not forsaking the gathering together with the saints' come before a husbands request to NOT go to church?" 

He insisted *I* was in err, and apparently didn't understand what the Bible said about Submission, that a wife should "submit to her husband in EVERY THING, and you can't pick and choose because EVERYTHING means just that every thing." In other words, he was saying that what a husband asks his wife to do, comes BEFORE what God asks for her to do as a CHRISTIAN and as His Child, in essence making the husband's desire more important than even God's desire. 

That is what I have a huge problem with, when people say that a wife must submit to her husband in everything, even when her choice not to submit is not going against God, but more placing God where He should be, even before her husband. 

Just because a couple gets married doesn't mean a husbands request or demands come before God's word for her a Christian. I am a Christian before I am a wife, and my relationship with Christ, should be my priority even within my role as a wife, lest I break the very first commandment of God, "thou shalt have no other gods before me." 

A husband is supposed to 'represent' Christ not 'be' Christ in his wife's life, and I think a lot of people get confused in that area.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bobbi, everyone,
Thanks for your participation; this thread has essentially covered all the treatments and hence, we will close it so that we don't begin talking about the moon and stars as well.

Night night.


----------

