Feminist Ideologies

[Anonymous]

"the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church . . . . so also wives should submit in EVERYTHING to their husbands" (Eph. 5:23-24)

"Everything" except sin.
A wife does not have to submit to any behavior or action that the Bible has defined as sinful. Her first allegiance is to God and her submission to HIM comes before anything else.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[CecilW]

if the head of the wife truly leads and truly makes a decision a truly godly woman will submit and follow.

For the record, Melody, blugrniz4u is at this point widowed, so without a husband "head" .

Second, as such, she has every right to seek and select a husband who, like her first, will discuss and converse, and maybe even argue with her over topics, then honor her freedom to make up her own highly intelligent mind.

I agree that if a situation arises where the husband feels he MUST put his foot down solidly, that is the time to submit. Mere co-operation when you don't care either way is not submission. That only occurs when we really would rather not! (Is voting it? Doubtful.)

However, many of us men struggle with where that point is, where a firm, "This is IT!!!" decision is called for. Others don't struggle with it enough -- they just do it all the time. It seems understandable that a woman might seek one of the former.

 

[CecilW]

Coming late to this thread ...

"Raise your hand if you want to go back to the days when a man can have you committed to an asylum for life purely on his say so"

"Raise your hand if you believe you have the right to remove yourself from an abusive marriage and take your children out of it"

Two of the most compelling reasons I know AGAINST blind submission. Especially as the men, in both types of situations, have been known to claim righteous reasons and authority for their behavior.

Personally, a pastor and I made a midnight run to get one woman and her children out of one of these situations. And I made another on my own. As some of you know, the latter turned out happily. So, in point of fact, did the former -- though not quite the same way. *grin* (She eventually remarried, happily so far as I know ...)

 

[blugrniz4u]

In a word...... NO... and secondly, my head is on my neck.

sounds like a feminist attitude to me.

here is what the bible says:
"the head of a wife is her husband" (1 Cor. 11:3)
"the woman is the glory of man and the woman was created for the man" (11:7-8)
"the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church . . . . so also wives should submit in EVERYTHING to their husbands" (Eph. 5:23-24)
"as sarah OBEYED Abraham calling him lord" (1 Peter 3:6).

i guess even some feminists believe in poly too....but a godly woman believes the bible and it says to obey. it is very simple and straight forward. if the head of the wife truly leads and truly makes a decision a truly godly woman will submit and follow.

Unlike some on this forum, I will not get into hair-splitting semantics with you regarding the definition of the words 'everything' and 'obey'. Won't even get into what the words were in the original Greek and or Hebrew.

I respect everyone's beliefs. Doesn't mean I agree with them, but I do respect them.

Suzanne

 

[Memphis Dwight]

Being free to do something is not the equivalent to being free from the consequences.
The biblical idea is for the mother to be primarily located within the domestic sphere. Whereas women are more nurturing by design, men have more of a sense of justice because of their relation to Father God in the order of creation. For that reason, a woman should not sit on a jury.
As far as voting goes, christians should not be voting because it ties them into an unholy alliance with the State.

 

[blugrniz4u]

Wow.

Really???

 

[Oreslag]

My point (just in case you missed it) is that feminisim evolved due to narrow-minded, heavy-handed men who thought they had the God-given right to TELL a woman WHAT she can think, WHAT she can do, and TO WHOM she can speak with.

Is your argument that feminism is justified by the actions of men then?

If so, then perhaps we should give all children the right to deny the authority of their parents on the same grounds. No longer will they need to eat their spinach, they'll have the right to demand Hershey's chocolate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner In seriousness though, my point is that abuse of power does not justify anarchy; which is the direction things go if no one is in charge (or from my viewpoint, when folks let themselves be lead by the evil one).

The Word is pretty clear that a wife should be obedient to her husband, and it does not anywhere imply that this obedience should be conditioned upon her understanding of the Word. Indeed, our Lord sets His own perfect authority aside in deference to the man to whom she belongs (Numbers 30), and commonly rescues such women when their foolish husband drives the family vehicle into the ditch (e.g. Sarah & Pharaoh, or Sarah & Abimilech). Indeed, the Word even calls women not to fear in such circumstances: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter 3:1-6&version=ESV, and specifically states that no one can serve two masters http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=two masters&version1=102&searchtype=all. Though much easier said than done, this is what our Lord calls us to.

In any case, while I might be convinced to agree with your premise (feminism is a response to the errors of men generally), it is still rebellion nonetheless and cannot rightly be blamed on men, but rather on sin and its corrosive effect. Feminism is at best an excuse to follow sin with more sin for the enjoyment of the sinner remaining dead in her sin.

 

[Oreslag]

Our heavenly father gave us all something (including women if you can imagine that ) called FREE WILL. My earthly father certainly never "told me" what thoughts I could or could not have; my first husband didn't either.

Indeed, He gave us free will; which our first mother and father subsequently used to rebel against Him. Since then, our free wills have been horribly biased towards evil. When we use our FREE WILL apart from checking it with scripture, things go horribly wrong (i.e. we sin) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+14:12&version=ESV. We are not sinners because we sin, but rather we sin because we are sinners. Thus, it might not be a good thing to depend too much on your free will alone since it is absolutely guaranteed to lead you on the path the evil one has set for you.

 

[Oreslag]

When I went to school, we were required to take a semester of American Government. As I recall, our founding fathers were very much against a democracy per se, as they envisioned it would be government by the unfit. At that time, only white, male property owners aged twenty-one years or older were allowed to vote.

In 1776, John Adams, future American president wrote that "no good could come from attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. It tends to confound and destoy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level."

That is why they formed a republic rather than a democracy. Worked really good until the populace and special interest segments set about to turn it into a democracy. How's that working for us?

Indeed, the constitutional republic they made fell apart about a century ago when the supreme court began to routinely fail to fulfill their duty to properly interpret legislation in terms of the constitution. Oh woe is us!

 

[Oreslag]

It has been alluded on this forum that having the aforementioned mindset is damaging and hurtful.

If believing and demanding that I (as a woman) have the right to 1) an education, 2) to vote, 3) to drive, 4) to sit on a jury, 5) hold a paying job outside of my home, then color me a feminist.

Is it possible for a woman to have these beliefs AND believe that Jesus Christ struck a tent in human flesh to die for her sins? Yes. This woman does.

I would say that WE (all mankind) don't have a right to anything except eternal damnation. All the rest is gravy

Very well said! I want mercy and not the wrath and condemnation I so richly deserve!

 

[Oreslag]

"the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church . . . . so also wives should submit in EVERYTHING to their husbands" (Eph. 5:23-24)

"Everything" except sin.
A wife does not have to submit to any behavior or action that the Bible has defined as sinful. Her first allegiance is to God and her submission to HIM comes before anything else.

Blessings,
Fairlight

So a wife should interpret scripture for herself and submit to her husband only when she believes her husband's command is righteous? If so, then why did Sarah obey Abraham regarding Pharaoh and Abimilech, and why was she commended in 1 Peter 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 peter 3:6&version=ESV for calling him lord even though he had compelled her to sin? Why does Jesus himself declare that no one can serve two masters (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword...chtype=all&version1=47&spanbegin=1&spanend=73)? Why does God defer to the father or the husband regarding vows (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers 30:3-15&version=ESV)?

It seems to me that a woman's primary allegiance is actually to her husband, and that in his capacity as her 'covering', he is responsible for any sin he compels upon his house. I believe the same thing applies to children in that they are compelled to obey their father and mother and are thus 'covered' by one or both (depending upon the situation). That being said, it still makes me shudder to think of a woman or child being compelled to sin by their husband or parents, respectively. For me, this is the most difficult portion of the Word to accept. Nevertheless, I cannot come to a different conclusion. Perhaps the reason that this is so is because my Master does not want me to take my command of my house lightly. Indeed, compelling my wife or my children is the most difficult thing I must face each day.

 

[Anonymous]

So a wife should interpret scripture for herself and submit to her husband only when she believes her husband's command is righteous?

She should not do anything that the Bible defines as sinful. In respect to sin, she has free-will and does not have to sin in the name of "patriarchal authority". If a husband demands that she rob a bank, have an abortion or engage in some form of sexual immorality....she does not have to comply. I see no verse that suggests otherwise. Now if the wife just doesn't agree with her husband or thinks he's wrong....that is another matter. In such cases, she needs to simply obey him, even if she doesn't like it...as long as it won't compel her to sin in some fashion.

It seems to me that a woman's primary allegiance is actually to her husband

The woman's primary allegiance is the same as the man's.....God.

and that in his capacity as her 'covering', he is responsible for any sin he compels upon his house.

So basically, all a woman has to do when she stands before God is point to her husband and say "It's not my fault, he made me do it !!!" ???
Scary bad!!! and more importantly...not Biblical.

 

[Memphis Dwight]

So basically, all a woman has to do when she stands before God is point to her husband and say "It's not my fault, he made me do it !!!" ???
Scary bad!!! and more importantly...not Biblical.

Actually it is biblical:
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 5:23

 

[Oreslag]

So a wife should interpret scripture for herself and submit to her husband only when she believes her husband's command is righteous?

She should not do anything that the Bible defines as sinful. In respect to sin, she has free-will and does not have to sin in the name of "patriarchal authority". If a husband demands that she rob a bank, have an abortion or engage in some form of sexual immorality....she does not have to comply. I see no verse that suggests otherwise. Now if the wife just doesn't agree with her husband or thinks he's wrong....that is another matter. In such cases, she needs to simply obey him, even if she doesn't like it...as long as it won't compel her to sin in some fashion.

It seems to me that a woman's primary allegiance is actually to her husband

The woman's primary allegiance is the same as the man's.....God.

and that in his capacity as her 'covering', he is responsible for any sin he compels upon his house.

So basically, all a woman has to do when she stands before God is point to her husband and say "It's not my fault, he made me do it !!!" ???
Scary bad!!! and more importantly...not Biblical.

So you're arguing she does have two masters, in opposition to what Jesus taught? How do you answer Sarah's response to Abraham's command to say she was his sister in consideration of the fact that God did not hold her responsible? I referenced the biblical verses from which I drew my conclusion. If you think this unbiblical, do you have references that excuse a woman from obeying her husband when she disagrees with his understanding of the scripture?

And you are absolutely correct in that she can choose to disobey her husband using her free will. It is just not at all clear she is right in so doing. The question is does God give her two masters to serve and ask her to choose which is right? If so, I think the entire idea of headship falls as a result. Please understand I'm pointing this out to highlight how profoundly important it is for a woman to be yoked only to a man who considers God the center and purpose of his life. Even so, it must be terribly more difficult for a woman to obey a husband she knows is flawed than for a man to obey God, for he knows God is not flawed. I think this is precisely what Peter means when he admonishes wives to "not fear anything that is frightening" in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 peter 3:5-6&version=ESV.

To be completely honest, I have great difficulty with this concept as well. Nevertheless, I believe the scripture argues to this conclusion. I don't believe God asks women to choose between their husband and Himself. Neither does he ask a husband to choose between other men and Himself. He is very clear regarding the headship of Christ over each man and each man over his wife. Thankfully, we are not judged on our own merit but on the merit of our savior, Christ Jesus! Thus, when she stands before God, Christ's imputed righteousness defends and covers her against her sins and the accusations of the evil one against her. Likewise, her husband. Only the unrepentant need worry about judgement. Men need repent of their rebellion against God, and women need repent of their rebellion against their husbands.

 

[blugrniz4u]

Is your argument that feminism is justified by the actions of men then?

In any case, while I might be convinced to agree with your premise (feminism is a response to the errors of men generally), it is still rebellion nonetheless and cannot rightly be blamed on men, but rather on sin and its corrosive effect.

Feminism is at best an excuse to follow sin with more sin for the enjoyment of the sinner remaining dead in her sin.

Feminism grew because most women were tired of being a man's private punching bag... tired of being a brood mare, tired of working as a slave, tired of being married off at the ripe old age of twelve (ask Loretta Lynn the country singer), tired of being murdered for the dowry they would bring to a marriage, tired of being placed into insane asylums because their husband was weary of them;
just to cite a few examples.

How many of you read the article regarding the Afghan woman who went to prison becaused she was RAPED?
That's right, R-A-P-E-D and the Afghan court sent her to prison for two years because she didn't want to marry the man who raped her and impregnated her.

As I have previously stated, some women have taken the feminist movement too far, but do not have the audacity to say that woman are in rebellion to God's Word and should not be doctors, professors, lawyers, soldiers, architects, journalists, truck drivers, judges, chemical engineers, marine biologists, etc.

 

[blugrniz4u]

She should not do anything that the Bible defines as sinful. In respect to sin, she has free-will and does not have to sin in the name of "patriarchal authority". If a husband demands that she rob a bank, have an abortion or engage in some form of sexual immorality....she does not have to comply. I see no verse that suggests otherwise. Now if the wife just doesn't agree with her husband or thinks he's wrong....that is another matter. In such cases, she needs to simply obey him, even if she doesn't like it...as long as it won't compel her to sin in some fashion.

The woman's primary allegiance is the same as the man's.....God.

So basically, all a woman has to do when she stands before God is point to her husband and say "It's not my fault, he made me do it !!!" ???
Scary bad!!! and more importantly...not Biblical.

LIKE !!!!!!!

 

[Doc]

I think at this point of the discussion, no new information is going to be gained. I appreciate everyone's participation, and I am locking the thread. God bless!

Doc