|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 3:15:15 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 6667
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theprincessbuttercup
quote:
a wife should follow her husband and let him make all the decisions,
Is that really what people are saying submission means? I don't read that from anyone, that the woman is just some lump who can't think for herself. But If you have ever had...well...any job, you know that ultimately it works better when there is some kind of heirarchy. I don't understand why that is so upsetting. My DH has never made a unilateral, hard fisted decision, and I still submit.
Marriage is not a job. It is two coming together as one. This a completely different scenario from a job where the boss owns or works for the company.
No one has said that a woman cannot think for herself, only that she is not the one to make the decision, her husband is. If he has final say, that means he decides. The definition of one who decides is the one who makes the decision. It doesn't matter if a husband listens to his wife and takes into account what she says or not. The point is that if a husband has "final say" he is the decision maker.
What about the guy who wants a motorcycle? He seems like a nice guy to me. If she hadn't told me this stuff, I would think all was fine and dandy. He is loving and never makes her look bad, at least not that I've ever seen. He doesn't seem controlling. In fact, from my perspective it's just the opposite, lack of self control.
I think it's weird how people can only see how it's working in their marriage with a godly husband and don't recognize that there are more women married to ungodly men who aren't necessarily bad guys, they just lack wisdom and conviction, so they do what feels good rather than what is right. Putting things off and waiting takes self control, but I have seen many men who just cannot wait for that motorcycle, 4x4, shed, tools, etc., so they squander away the family finances and the woman cannot do a thing except hope and pray. Most men like this, from my experience, think their wife is the one with the problem. She is wanting to withhold good things from him.
I understand that it is not only men who are like this. There are an equal amount of women like that, but we aren’t talking about making them in charge. If husband and wife are working together as one, we can balance out each other’s weaknesses and not enable bad decision making, but help each other and be stronger as two coming together as one.
_____________________________
Isaiah 30:21
Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, “This is the way; walk in it.”
Vistit my blog: http://livingcommentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 3:23:34 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2489
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theprincessbuttercup
I guess I just don't think that submitting to one another in love and the husband being head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church are mutally exclusive. They are both in the Bible, so it must be possible to do both.
They are not mutually exclusive. They can and do work together quite well.
_____________________________
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith... ...so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrew 12:3-4
Follow me on Twitter: MrsLalaD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 3:25:07 PM
|
|
|
theprincessbuttercup
Posts: 1083
Joined: 3/23/2010
From: Boo Radley's back yard
Status: offline
|
I know it isn't the same thing, but I had two dear friends in HS whose parents were not Christians and who used to just make them stay home from church for random reasons, etc. I remember our youth minister asking the question, does "honor your father and mother and Children obey your parents" still apply when your parents aren't saved? And he showed us why the answer was yes. I need to study more with regard to married couples, but it seems like such a slippery slope. I mean, if my DH says I can't put anymore clothes on the Belk card, but he hasn't been very godly lately, does that mean I get to go on a shopping spree? Obviously no one with a rational mind thinks you should prostitute yourself just because your lost husband says so. But what if he says he hasn't seen you all week and wants you to stay home on Sunday evening so he can spend time with you? That's when it gets grayer.
As far as the motorcycle incident goes, that is tough, very tough. I remember my DH bought a laptop a few years ago without talking to me first, and it was two weeks until payday. I was so mad. We overdrew that month. I shared with him how it made me feel, and how we couldn't buy the kids' school supplies. He felt badly, and it hasn't happened again. I don't know what I would have done if he had said, "I am buying a laptop whether you like it or not." Short of tackling him or freezing the checking account, there's not much I COULD do.
I think there will always be someone with an unusual situation where submission would be a tough call. But to base my view of submission on the exceptions just doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, it's easier to submit to a H who loves me like Christ loved the church....but it's also probably easier for him to love me as Christ loved the church if I submit to him as unto the Lord. When H and I decide things, WE decide things. There's never been a real decision that we have had to "flip a coin" over or anything. But if that ever did happen, and if H truly believed that God had led him in a certain direction, I would prayerfully say okay despite misgivings. And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 3:41:41 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theprincessbuttercup
I know it isn't the same thing, but I had two dear friends in HS whose parents were not Christians and who used to just make them stay home from church for random reasons, etc. I remember our youth minister asking the question, does "honor your father and mother and Children obey your parents" still apply when your parents aren't saved? And he showed us why the answer was yes. I need to study more with regard to married couples, but it seems like such a slippery slope. I mean, if my DH says I can't put anymore clothes on the Belk card, but he hasn't been very godly lately, does that mean I get to go on a shopping spree? Obviously no one with a rational mind thinks you should prostitute yourself just because your lost husband says so. But what if he says he hasn't seen you all week and wants you to stay home on Sunday evening so he can spend time with you? That's when it gets grayer.
As far as the motorcycle incident goes, that is tough, very tough. I remember my DH bought a laptop a few years ago without talking to me first, and it was two weeks until payday. I was so mad. We overdrew that month. I shared with him how it made me feel, and how we couldn't buy the kids' school supplies. He felt badly, and it hasn't happened again. I don't know what I would have done if he had said, "I am buying a laptop whether you like it or not." Short of tackling him or freezing the checking account, there's not much I COULD do.
I think there will always be someone with an unusual situation where submission would be a tough call. But to base my view of submission on the exceptions just doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, it's easier to submit to a H who loves me like Christ loved the church....but it's also probably easier for him to love me as Christ loved the church if I submit to him as unto the Lord. When H and I decide things, WE decide things. There's never been a real decision that we have had to "flip a coin" over or anything. But if that ever did happen, and if H truly believed that God had led him in a certain direction, I would prayerfully say okay despite misgivings. And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
Great post
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 3:41:59 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2489
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
There's the problem. You aren't "off the hook". You are just as much accountable to God for the management of your household as your husband is.
Look at Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. Sapphira was held just as much accountable for Ananias's decision to keep back some money and lie about it. Sapphira was just going along with her husband. Yet she, too, was struck down.
Look at Abigail. 1 Samuel 25. Her husband, Nabal spurned the request of David and his army. David was preparing to go in and destroy Nabal's entire household including his wife Abigail. Abigail went against her husband's command and brought supplies to David and his army. She saved her husband and family from destruction at David's hand due to her husband's foolishness. God struck down Nabal anyhow.
Wives and mothers are just as responsible for providing for their family as husbands and fathers. God will hold a woman responsible if she allows her husband to destroy their children. Claiming that it's "on him" as the head of the household won't release her from fault.
_____________________________
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith... ...so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrew 12:3-4
Follow me on Twitter: MrsLalaD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 3:43:55 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
I guess I just don't think that submitting to one another in love and the husband being head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church are mutually exclusive. They are both in the Bible, so it must be possible to do both.
It is entirely possible to "do" both -- though to be the 'head' of another is a very complex thing that involves very little "doing".
The questions are:
Does 'be the head' mean lead?
Does 'be the head' mean that the relationship involves ruling and subordination? What about obedience?
Is it possible to 'be the head' of someone else, and yet be lead by them?
Is there a command here to 'be the head' 'become the head' 'act like the head' or 'make sure you are the head'?
If it's not a command, is it a statement of practical/legal fact, or a statement of spiritual fact?
If it is a statement of spiritual fact, what spiritual fact is it stating, and why do we think that?
Is it possible (or right, or OK) to lead someone to whom you are submitting?
Do you need authority to lead someone? If so, what are the possible sources of that authority?
Is it possible (or right, or OK) to lead someone, as a Christian, to whom you are not submitting?
If you try to lead someone to whom you are not submitting, as a Christian, are you sinning?
If you presume to authority over someone over-whom you have no legitimate authority, as a Christian, are you sinning?
If you ignore the rightful authority of someone over you, as a Christian are you sinning?
Is it right or OK to resist or refuse a leadership attempt from someone to whom you are submitting?
Is it possible for someone to be held spiritually accountable for the actions of another person?
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 3:46:27 PM
|
|
|
theprincessbuttercup
Posts: 1083
Joined: 3/23/2010
From: Boo Radley's back yard
Status: offline
|
I can see your point, especially with Ananais and Sapphira. He obviously deceived, and she went long with it. I was thinking more of when DH and I move to wherever he gets a job. Say he wants to buy a house, but I think that since we don't have a good down payment it would be wiser to wait. If both were "doable" but we couldn't agree, then I would defer to him, knowing that I would be obedient to what scripture says. We can't just live on the street, so we'd have to do one or the other. If it turned out that the house payment was bigger than he thought, and he had to do without digital cable, that would be too bad, so to speak.
I don't know if I am making sense. I guess since we have been through the marital fire, I have just learned not to make my obedience contingent on his.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 4:05:24 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
The choice to defer to the plans and preferences of one's spouse is a good and noble choice, in many settings, especially where things are mostly OK / "doable" either way. That's part of the submission of both spouses to each other, to be willing to yeild one's preferences for the other's good, even if that 'good' is simple satisfaction, happiness, indulgence or ease.
Where it becomes sticky is when one person asks (or demands) that the other yeild their preferences, not for a desire that is good, fair enough, OK but possibly unwise -- but to something that is clearly foolish, ungodly, bad, or very likely to hurt somebody. Submission to one another does not require or even imply this dynamic. If the decision at hand were one like this, the choice to defer would not be a choice that came out of obedience to the command to submit, and it might well be disobedience to some other command -- if so, you would be personally accountable for choosing it, no matter who was pressuring you.
The other part to carefully note is that while I am in charge of choosing for myself to submit to others, I am not required to tolerate a lie that allows others to go on believing that submission is my role alone. I can do what is right myself, while fulfilling my responsibility to inform them when they wrong me, thereby helping them to escape from what might be a habitual sin.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 4:05:57 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2489
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theprincessbuttercup
I can see your point, especially with Ananais and Sapphira. He obviously deceived, and she went long with it. I was thinking more of when DH and I move to wherever he gets a job. Say he wants to buy a house, but I think that since we don't have a good down payment it would be wiser to wait. If both were "doable" but we couldn't agree, then I would defer to him, knowing that I would be obedient to what scripture says. We can't just live on the street, so we'd have to do one or the other. If it turned out that the house payment was bigger than he thought, and he had to do without digital cable, that would be too bad, so to speak.
You don't have to defer to him without knowing if that is the right thing to do. The Holy Spirit can lead you in whether it is wise to defer or it's time to make a stand.
When you are deciding on what can both be good decisions then it is best to defer to the one who is best at making those kind of decisions. I have a friend who is gifted when it comes to money management. Her husband learned early in their marriage that the wisest way to manage their money was to put that management in her hands. She controls the money. She submits to her husband by doing her best at managing their finances and trying to incorporate his desires into the plan as much as possible. He submits to her management skills by patiently waiting when she says "not now".
quote:
I don't know if I am making sense. I guess since we have been through the marital fire, I have just learned not to make my obedience contingent on his.
I agree, obedience is not contingent on what another person does. We just have to remember that obedience to God is what is required.
_____________________________
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith... ...so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrew 12:3-4
Follow me on Twitter: MrsLalaD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 4:07:28 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
quote:
And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
There's the problem. You aren't "off the hook". You are just as much accountable to God for the management of your household as your husband is.
Look at Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. Sapphira was held just as much accountable for Ananias's decision to keep back some money and lie about it. Sapphira was just going along with her husband. Yet she, too, was struck down.
Look at Abigail. 1 Samuel 25. Her husband, Nabal spurned the request of David and his army. David was preparing to go in and destroy Nabal's entire household including his wife Abigail. Abigail went against her husband's command and brought supplies to David and his army. She saved her husband and family from destruction at David's hand due to her husband's foolishness. God struck down Nabal anyhow.
Wives and mothers are just as responsible for providing for their family as husbands and fathers. God will hold a woman responsible if she allows her husband to destroy their children. Claiming that it's "on him" as the head of the household won't release her from fault.
That is really taking scripture out of context!
1) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's decission to withhold part of the sale.
2) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's lie.
3) Sapphira was held responsible for HER lie!
It has been said many times before that a woman's submission is first to God and then to her husband and Sapphira's choice showed rebellion to God (not submission)
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 4:16:55 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2489
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
quote:
And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
There's the problem. You aren't "off the hook". You are just as much accountable to God for the management of your household as your husband is.
Look at Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. Sapphira was held just as much accountable for Ananias's decision to keep back some money and lie about it. Sapphira was just going along with her husband. Yet she, too, was struck down.
Look at Abigail. 1 Samuel 25. Her husband, Nabal spurned the request of David and his army. David was preparing to go in and destroy Nabal's entire household including his wife Abigail. Abigail went against her husband's command and brought supplies to David and his army. She saved her husband and family from destruction at David's hand due to her husband's foolishness. God struck down Nabal anyhow.
Wives and mothers are just as responsible for providing for their family as husbands and fathers. God will hold a woman responsible if she allows her husband to destroy their children. Claiming that it's "on him" as the head of the household won't release her from fault.
That is really taking scripture out of context!
1) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's decission to withhold part of the sale.
2) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's lie.
3) Sapphira was held responsible for HER lie!
It has been said many times before that a woman's submission is first to God and then to her husband and Sapphira's choice showed rebellion to God (not submission)
Sapphira lied because she was following her husband's lead. And, yes, she was struck down for her lie. Her lie wasn't "on him" just because he was her husband and he led her to do so. Wives are just as responsible to God as their husband is even if her decision is based on "submitting' to her husband.
_____________________________
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith... ...so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrew 12:3-4
Follow me on Twitter: MrsLalaD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 4:45:58 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2548
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
quote:
And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
There's the problem. You aren't "off the hook". You are just as much accountable to God for the management of your household as your husband is.
Look at Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. Sapphira was held just as much accountable for Ananias's decision to keep back some money and lie about it. Sapphira was just going along with her husband. Yet she, too, was struck down.
Look at Abigail. 1 Samuel 25. Her husband, Nabal spurned the request of David and his army. David was preparing to go in and destroy Nabal's entire household including his wife Abigail. Abigail went against her husband's command and brought supplies to David and his army. She saved her husband and family from destruction at David's hand due to her husband's foolishness. God struck down Nabal anyhow.
Wives and mothers are just as responsible for providing for their family as husbands and fathers. God will hold a woman responsible if she allows her husband to destroy their children. Claiming that it's "on him" as the head of the household won't release her from fault.
That is really taking scripture out of context!
1) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's decission to withhold part of the sale.
2) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's lie.
3) Sapphira was held responsible for HER lie!
It has been said many times before that a woman's submission is first to God and then to her husband and Sapphira's choice showed rebellion to God (not submission)
Sapphira lied because she was following her husband's lead. And, yes, she was struck down for her lie. Her lie wasn't "on him" just because he was her husband and he led her to do so. Wives are just as responsible to God as their husband is even if her decision is based on "submitting' to her husband.
This is simply a strawman! Everyone posting in this thread has agreed that submission to God comes before submission to a husband. Sapphira was punished for HER rebellion to God, not for her husband's rebellion! NO ONE IS ADVOCATING that a woman submit to a husband's request when that request requires a wife to sin against God.[image][/image]
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 5:00:41 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2489
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is simply a strawman! Everyone posting in this thread has agreed that submission to God comes before submission to a husband. Sapphira was punished for HER rebellion to God, not for her husband's rebellion! NO ONE IS ADVOCATING that a woman submit to a husband's request when that request requires a wife to sin against God.[image][/image]
It is not a strawman as I was responding to the statement:
quote:
And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
Benelchi, I don't usually find your posts to be nitpickingly finding fault. Obviously there are points in this discussion that we don't agree on but mostly I do agree with you. There is plenty for you to debate with me. Why are you twisting statements of mine to find disagreement. For example: Sapphira being stuck down for lying.
_____________________________
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith... ...so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. Hebrew 12:3-4
Follow me on Twitter: MrsLalaD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 5:05:27 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
Not that I agree at all with the point, but, for the sake of clarity, I think we are forgetting that there is a difference between
"If he leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him." (Meaning doing something uwise: wasting money, moving unnessisarily, joining the military, starting a home-based business, putting the kids in public school, getting 16 dogs, a cat and 4 amphibous turtles for a 5 year old, choosing a less-than-ideal church.)
-- and --
"If he tells me that I should sin, and I do it, it's on him." (Which is the case with A&S, but not a position anybody is taking on this thread.)
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 5:06:14 PM
|
|
|
3cappuccinosmom
Posts: 2127
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
This simply a strawman! Everyone posting in this thread has agreed that submission to God comes before submission to a husband. Sapphira was punished for HER rebellion to God, not for her husband's rebellion! NO ONE IS ADVOCATING that a woman submit to a husband's request when that request requires a wife to sin against God.[image][/image]
Peter, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, actually said that they "agreed together to put the Lord to the test". (Acts 5:9).
It appears that the Lord knew she was not some poor downtrodden woman suffering at her stupid husband's hand, but rather a woman who was in complete agreement with her husband and a co-conspirator rather than a hapless tag-along.
Meanwhile, God did not strike Abigail down. Because she did what was *right* and was obedient to God first, husband second. On moral issues, God's authority is way, way beyond a husband's, and God's commands apply to women as well to men. But on issues of preference or family direction, I think Ephesians 5 is very much relevant to us today and has nothing to do with culture. If it's irrelevent or unnecessary now for the woman's side, then is the command to men also irrelevant and unnecessary?
_____________________________
 Moo
"Yup, I'm in agreement with Maggie here on all of this" Manda, April 2010
Global Tantrum Crisis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/21/2010 5:22:34 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think Ephesians 5 is very much relevant to us today and has nothing to do with culture. If it's irrelevant or unnecessary now for the woman's side, then is the command to men also irrelevant and unnecessary?
I'm unclear who is saying that any part of the "woman's side" of Eph 5 is irrelevant or unnecessary. They are earth-shatteringly relevant.
It is clearly both relevant and necessary that a wife submit to her husband in all things. It is just that "submit" does not mean subordinate, or obey-in-the-end ,or defer-in-all-cases-of-disagreement. It is 'as the Church submits to Christ' -- the Church finds unity and completeness in Christ, and they move and act as a kingdom force with a single will and without conflict or cause for disagreement. This is submission, and it is achieved through unity, not through subordination.
The "command to men" is also relevant and necessary in accomplishing the unity that submission to one another is calling for.
Of course it would not hurt any of us to submit in all ways to one another: it does not hurt a husband to submit to his wife as the Church does to Christ -- to take shelter under her power and seek to be found in fundamental unity with her, to respect her. And it does not hurt a woman to love her husband sacrificially, as she loves herself, to feed him, clothe him, and help him to live out his purity.
I can see why the propensities of the genders and the structures of the day called for these two gender-specific expressions of submission, but there is nothing inherently wrong in taking both sets of instructions to heart, as both of them are expressions of obedience to the same command.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/22/2010 12:19:33 PM
|
|
|
cynthia
Posts: 6667
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Beautiful Puget Sound Region
Status: offline
|
Update in motorcycle man. He has apparently realized the folly of buying a motorcycle at this time. My friend is very relieved.
_____________________________
Isaiah 30:21
Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, “This is the way; walk in it.”
Vistit my blog: http://livingcommentaries.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/23/2010 8:37:25 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 532
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Example that would demonstrate where it was good that the wife went against the husband's sinful wishes....
Abigail and Nabal
1 Samuel 25
_____________________________
It not that I don't think that the health care system needs reformation, but with the Gov't's track record, I fear that it will be like trying to sculpt a statute of my great-grandmother by using a shotgun.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/23/2010 9:19:39 AM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
First: I don't see how Nabal's lack of willingness to give his goods to David's armed band was sinful.
Second: I don't see when Nabal asked his wife to sin.
Third: I don't see anywhere where the text said that God approved or disapproved of Abigail's choices.
Therefore what happened between Abigail and Nabal is an example of a wife acting independently, with the shared goods of the household. However, it is an example which can not be reasonably applied in any case, because we are never told whether Abigail did right or wrong in the eyes of God. There is some implication that God approves communicated through David's words of approval, but a case can not be built on that exegetical evidence.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men's/Women's roles in the Home - One Stop Thread - 5/25/2010 10:17:06 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 1391
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
quote:
And because he - as the head of the home - is accountable for his leadership, I am off the hook, so to speak. If H leads us in the wrong direction, it's on him.
There's the problem. You aren't "off the hook". You are just as much accountable to God for the management of your household as your husband is.
Look at Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5. Sapphira was held just as much accountable for Ananias's decision to keep back some money and lie about it. Sapphira was just going along with her husband. Yet she, too, was struck down.
Look at Abigail. 1 Samuel 25. Her husband, Nabal spurned the request of David and his army. David was preparing to go in and destroy Nabal's entire household including his wife Abigail. Abigail went against her husband's command and brought supplies to David and his army. She saved her husband and family from destruction at David's hand due to her husband's foolishness. God struck down Nabal anyhow.
Wives and mothers are just as responsible for providing for their family as husbands and fathers. God will hold a woman responsible if she allows her husband to destroy their children. Claiming that it's "on him" as the head of the household won't release her from fault.
That is really taking scripture out of context!
1) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's decission to withhold part of the sale.
2) Sapphira was not held responsible for her husband's lie.
3) Sapphira was held responsible for HER lie!
It has been said many times before that a woman's submission is first to God and then to her husband and Sapphira's choice showed rebellion to God (not submission)
You are absolutely correct Benelchi.
Ananias sold the property and kept back part of the proceeds with Sapphira's full knowledge. He then gave the rest as a offering. In doing so he lied about how much he sold the property for. Peter told him he had lied to God and was stealing from God. It shuld be noted that Sapphira was not even with Ananias at this time. The scripture tells us she showed up about three hours later. She did not know what had happened to Ananias. Peter ask her about the price of the land and She lied about it. She could have told the truth and lived but she chose to lie. She was in fact punished for her own transgressions and not those of Ananias.
_____________________________
I don't need a mathematician to balance my check book, a English Literature Professor to read Shakespear and I don't need a Greek Scholar to understand the Bible
|
|
|
|
|
Submission is not silence! - 8/11/2010 7:03:21 PM
|
|
|
goodshorts
Posts: 2
Joined: 8/9/2010
Status: offline
|
I just happened to run accross this forum, it is of major interest to me because my mom recently started a blog about men and women's role in their relationship to eachother in a marriage, and what the Bible has to say about it. I would like to share a section of it....
"Two becoming one flesh should be hopeful, an adventure, romantic. Why then does it so often turn into a nightmare?
I walked into an art show in St. Augustine and was introduced to the friend of a friend. She must have had a clue of my interest in Scripture and women and God’s plan. Her first comment (and I might add, out of context with an art show) was, “God doesn’t have roles for men and women in the Bible.”
We haven’t known our roles on the stage of life. We haven’t embraced them. Instead we have listened to the “expert” who says that men and women are the same. Or we have tried to believe that we women have a “male side”, or that men have a "female side". It is because we didn’t know to, or would not go to the Bible for direction.
Right from the beginning of Scripture, from the beginning of time, from the beginning of human history there are two roles, two leading roles on the stage of life. “God created mankind in his own image…male and female…” (Gen 1:27)
Some men come down hard on their wives when they have a diverse perspective because tradition has taught them that “submission is silence”. Yet different people are bound to have different ideas, and different roles call for different perspectives.
Only when we “see” with eyes of our Creator will we know that His will is good and acceptable and perfect. We will know to, “…be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Rom 12:2) "
this was taken from the Submission is not Silence blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2010 11:52:22 PM
|
|
|
Markie51
Posts: 35
Joined: 4/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Dear PogOn,
The principle of headship, as set out at 1 Corinthians 11:3, holds the answer: “The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.”
This arrangement does not point first to man’s headship. Rather, it draws attention to the fact that there is someone to whom the man should be looking for direction, someone whose example he should be following. That someone is Jesus Christ. He is the head of man. And in his dealings with his congregation, which is likened to a bride, Christ demonstrated the way to make a success of husbandly headship. His fine example stirred a willing response in his followers. When he took the lead, instead of being a boss, harsh and demanding toward his followers, Jesus was “mild-tempered and lowly in heart,” so that they found refreshment for their souls.-Matthew 11:28-30; Ephesians 5:25-31.
Authority of a husband over his wife is a relative one. That is, the Christian mate and children are subject to God and Christ first, obeying their counsel. To some unbelieving mates or parents that idea might at first be displeasing. But really it works for their good, because it will help to make the believing mate more dependable and respectful.
Wives stand to benefit by heeding Paul’s words: “You wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as it is becoming in the Lord.” (Colossians 3:18) This is in harmony with God’s original arrangement, that the wife is to be a “helper as a complement” to her husband. (Genesis 2:20) Where there are two heads, there is pulling and tugging against each other, resulting in disunity.
However, if a husband was to demand that his wife do something that would not be “becoming in the Lord”? What she does will show whether she really “fears the true God” or not.-Ecclesiastes 12:13.
Even if her husband is an unbeliever, he is still the “head” of his wife. On becoming a believer, she should continue to perform her wifely duties, but with even more loving interest in his welfare than previously, as becomes a Christian helpmate. (1 Corinthians 11:3) The apostle Peter recommends that wives put on a “quiet and mild spirit,” saying: “You wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they may be won without a word through the conduct of their wives, because of having been eyewitnesses of your chaste conduct together with deep respect.”-1 Peter 3:1-4.
By loyally continuing with an unbelieving husband, even though he is opposed to her religious activities, a wife may have her patience rewarded in her husband’s later examining and accepting the “good news.” In any case, her young children, if obedient, are regarded by God as “holy” in the family arrangement that she perseveres to maintain. Similar principles apply where believing husbands are united in marriage to unbelieving wives.-1 Corinthians 7:12-16.
Husbands will be richly rewarded in heeding Paul’s next words to the Colossians: “You husbands, keep on loving your wives and do not be bitterly angry with them.”-Colossians 3:19.
The husband’s headship is to be exercised always in a loving way, not in a tyrannical manner. As he “keeps on loving his wife,” he should apply himself to showing her “honor as to a weaker vessel,” having regard for her emotional makeup and womanly vicissitudes. (1 Peter 3:7) Before making family decisions, he should talk things over with her and give loving consideration to her opinions and desires. He should always have at heart her best interests, and especially her spiritual welfare.
In all aspects of life, the husband should continue loving his wife “just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it.” In the Gospels, we never read of Christ as being “bitterly angry” with the congregation. Nor should husbands treat wives harshly. They should be “loving their wives as their own bodies,” cherishing them as their own flesh, for, indeed, both are “one flesh” together.-Ephesians 5:25, 28-30.
When there is such headship in the home, it is not difficult for a wife to look up and always shows “deep respect for her husband” and for his decisions, even to overlooking his failings, she can make a powerful contribution toward a harmonious and joyful family. If she is diligent in “watching over the goings on of her household,” including the instruction of her children, these will “pronounce her happy.” Also, her husband will praise her.-Ephesians 5:33; Proverbs 31:10-31.
Markie51,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/12/2010 5:17:36 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
“The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.”
(1) ... there is someone to whom the man should be looking for direction, someone whose example he should be following. That someone is Jesus Christ. He is the head of man.
(2) ... Authority of a husband over his wife is a relative one.
(3) ... The husband’s headship is to be exercised always in a loving way, not in a tyrannical manner.
(4) ... Before making family decisions, he should talk things over with her and give loving consideration to her opinions and desires.
You seem to be saying that you believe Jesus Christ the LORD is, or should be:
(1.) that Jesus should be "looking to someone <God the Father> for direction"
(2.) that Jesus has an "authority over Him" <God the Father>
(3.) That the headship of God the Father over Christ should not be used "tyranically" -- but could be, since His headship entitels Him to act that way (if it were in His character).
(4.) That all the decisions the Trinity makes are primarily made by God the Father, involving only conversation regarding Jesus' opinions.
You will have to excuse me for my own understanding of the Trinity. It is, however, generally orthodox and Biblical to conclude that in His union with God, in the existence of the Trintiy, that the Father and Son are equals and full partners (with the Spirit, of course).
I do not support the idea that God holds a higher authority over Christ in any way. Therefore, when we discuss headship it is critical that we remember that a huband relates to his wife the way God relates to Jesus, and vice-versa: that a wife relates to her husband the way Jesus relates to God.
Now, I'm the first to admit that I don't actually know how God and Christ relate within the Trinity, and how God's headship can be understood: but I am quite sure that it absolutely can not be thought of as a relationship defined by an authority-and-subordiantion dynamic. (I rather think it must have to do with the unity of mutual indwelling and genuine submission <not subordination>.)
Therefore I find it impossible to apply to headship in marriage the authority-and-subordiantion dynamic that you have outlined. If God is the head of Christ (in the same way that) the husband is the head of his wife... then we have a lot of theology to do before we can even begin to apply that concept to our own unions.
quote:
Christ demonstrated the way to make a success of husbandly headship.
So then what is He supposed to be "demonstrating" in how He relates to His head <God the Father>? (And I don't mean how he related to Him during His incarnation on earth... the verse is in the present tense, and was written after the ressurection and ascencion.
quote:
the wife is to be a “helper as a complement” to her husband. (Genesis 2:20)
And GOD is to be a "helper as a compliment" to His people? I see God's helper-ness as a much stronger proposition.
quote:
if a husband was to demand that his wife do something
How does GOD react when the people He is helping "demand" that He do something? Does He respond as you imply a good helper would?
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 4:52:22 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 994
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
From a different thread...
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: deermousie
One of the problems with a wife working is that it costs a lot; sometimes as much as she earns. Transportation (car, gas, tires, oil, repairs, insurance), clothes, grooming, child care if her hours don't match school, etc.
All of those same factors exist for the dad, except for child care. It's not like SAHM's stop wearing clothes, eating food or driving a car. One wonders how Christian fathers ever "afford" to work.
Why do conservatives pull this cloak and dagger act when trying to convince women to be at home. If you believe that God has ordered all married women or all women with minor children to be at home, then say so on doctrinal grounds. But time and time again I see this assumption that it is expensive for women to work outside the home, but not men. There's this belief that women who work will spend most or all of their income in ways that a man working will not, and it just doesn't fly with me.
When I worked outside the home, my clothing budget was not much different (I still wear clothes as a SAHM), I ate about the same (we usually eat homemade meals but occasionally go out), and we would never go down to one car. dH wouldn't allow me to be without a car, and it's pretty much impossible for me to drop him off.
Now, if a woman wishes to stay at home, I totally understand giving her support and advice about how to make it on one income, but to guilt a woman into staying home by convincing her that her job would be fiscally worthless ...
Why is it that women have a "cost of working" but men don't? It's not like all men make six digit salaries and all women are making min wage. Except for childcare, there's just no difference between the two. My SIL makes twice what my brother does, and she still managed to breastfeed their baby  (who is in a caregivers hands all of 20 hours a week, if that, and she's even awake during many of her caregiver hours).
< Message edited by Sideways -- 8/20/2010 5:03:01 PM >
_____________________________
Well behaved women rarely make the history books.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread - 8/20/2010 5:22:13 PM
|
|
|
Hislittleone
Posts: 501
Joined: 7/13/2007
From: The South
Status: offline
|
Maybe the "cost of working" varies. Like Maggie said in the other thread though, life can be lived less expensively if both parents aren't working outside the home. Maybe not always, but a lot of the time I bet that's the case.
-You don't have to worry about daycare costs.
-You don't have the expense of children getting sick as often.
-You don't have the same gas expense.
-I'd guess the cost of eating is less as well.
-Clothing might be a bigger cost, depending on the type of job.
I'd say it just depends on the job, where it's located, what the salary is, etc. Hopefully most people also consider the benefits children receive when one parent stays home, not just the financial aspect.
_____________________________
Galations 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
