Feminine Mystique and Apostolic Sisters

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Dear all,

> In fact, the proper relationship is based on *mutual*
> submission.

> Husbands need to learn to submit to wives, honouring them.  
> Wives need to submit to husbands, honouring them.  Honour 
> can't belong to just one member.

	I don't believe that men should "submit" themselves to their wives. 
It's not biblical, and there is nothing I can find that would support
that concept.  I find the sentence "Honour can't belong to just one
member" interesting because our acceptance of the the question it begs
(Ought men and women to be honored in the same way and to equal degree?)
is a manifestation of how deep the "feminist" (or "humanist" for that
matter) deception has entered our minds, lives and theologies.  

	I'm not haranguing you, bro. Matt, but just follow me for a moment and
see what you all think about this.

	The following is what I found regarding a man's Godly thoughts, duties,
etc, about his wife (of course, by no means an exhaustive study):

1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and
likewise also the wife unto the husband. 
1Co 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the
world, how he may please [his] wife. 

	The word says that a man ought to have "benevolence" for his wife and
that she is the object of his affection.  A man's thoughts are centered
on pleasing her.  Benevolence is defined as "an inclination to good;
kindliness."  In the marriage, it is a picture of the benificence of God
toward us His bride.

	And the following is what I found about a woman's Godly thoughts,
duties, etc, about her husband:

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
Lord. 
1Co 7:34 There is difference [also] between a wife and a virgin. The
unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy
both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the
things of the world, how she may please [her] husband. 

	Here we have the command (order, if you will) to submit.  Submit means
to "to present or refer to others for decision, consideration, etc.  to
yield to the action, control, power, etc. of another or others."  Why? 
1 Cor. 7:34 makes it plain that the natural affections of the wife is to
the husband and that she wishes to please him.  In the marriage, it is a
picture of the submission we, the bride of Christ, are to have toward
Christ, our SOVEREIGN Lord and master.

	Unless there is a role reversal, the submitter cannot be the master. 
The one to whom submission is due has a measure of sovereingty.  To be
sure, Jesus Christ was a servant and gave His life for us on the cross,
but He NEVER submitted Himself to mankind.  Jesus Christ never yielded
His supreme sovereignty to man.  Servant, in the context and manner in
which Jesus presented Himself, and submitter, are two different things. 
As opposed to the servant sense, which I believe is the model we men are
to conduct ourselves in marriage, the man shouldn't be submitted to his
wife, not only because the bible doesn't provide for it, but for us to
do so is to yield sovereignty we are not empowered to delegate.  The
apostle Paul put it more succinctly and more elegantly when he said,
"Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the
head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Eph 5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be]
to their own husbands in every thing."

	The question then becomes: how can the difference in roles be
justified?  I believe that it is because men and women are different and
as noted above are complimentary in their symbolism of the roles of the
Bride and Bridegroom.

	Men and women are different and cannot react the same to the same
situation.  Women are the "weaker vessel."  They are the more emotional
and more sensitive.  Men are the more logical and goal oriented.  Men
are built, if you will, to get the job done, while women fill in the
details that give the picture a fuller and more complete vision.  We are
natural compliments.  My favorite analogy (the one my wife hates, of
course) of men and women involves the M-16 model 1, and the AK47.  A
testosterone laden analogy, but one, as you will find, that fits to a
tee.  An M16 is great rifle.  It takes a .223 inch diamater boat-tailed
bullet and can accurately put it on target 500 or 600 yards down range. 
It can do that all day long.  An AK47, unless tuned, will have
difficulty doing the same at 100 yards, and 200 yards is a stretch. 
However, take an M16 model 1 into the field where conditions aren't
sterile, and mud and grit get in the action, or where there's
hand-to-hand combat, you might find yourself in deep kimche.  An AK47 is
different.  It can be dragged behind a truck, left in a ditch, and it
will still fire.  The wood stock, unlike the plastic of the M16 stock,
will leave a knot on your head.  What is the point?  The point is that
while they're both rifles, they have different applications, and they
don't work the same, can't be treated the same, and have different
output.

	I don't have the word study in front of me, but if you check out the
account in Genesis of the creation of man and woman, the creation of man
and woman even point to a different manner of creation.  God "formed"
(Gen. 2:7) man which is "to form, fashion, frame."  The  connotation
being "through squeezing into shape" as a potter forms a clay pot. 
Nothing elegant, but functional and practical.  However, the word talks
about a woman being "made" (Gen 2:22).  The Strong's definition for that
is "to build, rebuild, establish, cause to continue."  The connotation
there is of a fashioning, a finishing of the original.

	The statement that "Honour can't belong to just one member" sound good
on the surface, but the differences between men and women makes it
awkward if you think about it for even a moment.  Why awkward?  Because
it isn't complete and begs the point that honor given doesn't
necessarily have to be equal measures of the same thing.  To believe so
misses the idea that not only are men and women different, but that
their roles are different, and that God Himself made that difference for
His reasons, not to be dismissed out of hand by egalitarian hubris. 
Peter recognized this: "1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them]
according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker
vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your
prayers be not hindered."  See that?  "As unto the weaker vessel." 
Interpret that as you may, but it is a qualification where there is none
with regard to the subjection a wife must have for her husband.  There
is a difference.  God sees it, so why can't we?  I think that part of it
is a rejection of our submission to God.  By making the woman the same
in creation, role, and submission, we are rejecting God's plan which is
in the natural relationship between a man and a woman as it points to
the supernatural relationship between Christ and the church.  

<slightly off topic>
	Not to start a burned out thread again, but this is the reason that I'm
so adamant against women pastors, preachers, and prayer leaders.  It
upsets the natural order that God has set up by having a woman in a
position of supernatural authority over men, whether they have their own
husband's permission, or not.
</slightly off topic>

	I'm not insensitive to the plight that some women experience with their
unsaved, or abusive husband, but the word provides for them, too.  "1Pe
3:1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that,
if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the
conversation of the wives;"  A godly wife will be able to convert her
husband because the truth of God in their manner of carrying themselves
will eventually wear down the resistance of even the most recalcitrant
brute.  However, to characterize the bulk of American manhood as being
beyond the redemptive effects of a Godly wife (which is taken as a given
many Christian and non-Christian discussions) is to deny the power of
the Gospel and the penetrating effect of the Holy Spirit. 

	You didn't say that, you reply!  When we come to believe that a woman
must assume some sort of manly role in the house because a man won't, or
that men would automatically take advantage of wife who displayed a
submissive spirit, we have then bought into the world's concept of what
"men are", and what "women have to do."  We also ought to realize that
Gospel isn't instant pudding.  Sometimes things take time to happen.  It
may take time for a husband to come online and take Godly control of his
family, likewise, it may take time for a husband to teach his dear
"Katherine"*** the ways of their household.  Therefore, let us not be so
quick to dismiss, implicitly or explicitly, God's commands just because
things don't work out the way we want (and right now!) or because the
world is in a terrible state (and therefore "I" have a better idea!).

	I believe, however, that unless we're talking about the state of the
family vis-a-vis the end times and how it's dissolution is somehow
indicative of "the end", or unless we're discussing how "we ought not
act", it might be better for us to focus on what God would have us do. 
It's slightly and subtlely different than how most of these
conversations carry themselves, but it makes all the difference.  In
other words, let's not first look at the sorry state of some American
families and say that's the reason we should do 'x', but rather what is
the ideal way in which we husbands and wives ought to act, one toward
another, and let's do that without qualification!

	Brother Matthew did put it beautifully when he said:
> If we could all learn the beautiful lesson of humble deference 
> to one another, I believe that we could strengthen our 
> relationships with one another and with Christ.
	I think "humble deference" captures it all, don't you?

God bless you,
Bro. Steven 

*** "Taming of the Shrew"  Wm. Shakespeare