quote:
I love that broad generalization. My wife and I are conservative Christian.
I was speaking of the largest conservative Christian denomination in the US, the Southern Baptists, who specifically instruct women to submit to their husbands and for the husbands to lead the family.
Again, this was mentioned at the begining of the thread.
The divorce rate for this group is higher than the national average, along with conservative non-denominational Protestant churches, while Lutherans, Catholics, and Atheists & Agnostics are below the national average.
quote:
To us, our marriage is not just practical, but it is also spiritual.
Ephesians 5, verse 21-33 outlines the foundations of spirit-guided relationships. That passage talks about a mutual submission and understanding. The man merely leads his family, but does not control or dominate his family.
OK, please explain how a leader does not also control. A leader, by definition, tells others what to do, don't they? They decide courses of action that the group will take, and others follow.
A leader, no matter how loving or how much they have your best interests at heart, still tells you what to do.
quote:
Control or domination would be abuse, IMHO.
I am talking about more subtle things.
If a woman never has equal say in important things in the marriage, she is simply a follower.
Many women have been trained to not be adults; to be passive and pliable and agreeable and follow the direction of parents and later of their husband. They are trained to not even have ambitions or dreams of their own but to see their lives only in the context of their husbands', and later, of their childrens'.
It is certainly easier and safer to not be a grown-up, but it is also a lot like sleep walking through life, and a lot of divorce happens after 20 years of marriage and the kids are all out of the house and the woman realizes she has spent half of her life with no idea what she wants or who she is. She has been dutiful and obedient but she hasn't lived for herself.
quote:
I can give an example: I ask my wife what she would like for dinner. She responds with "I don't know, doesn't matter," because she wants me to make the decision. So it's up to me to not be a wimp and step up to the plate and lead.
I don't think this is what I am tallking about. I think your wife would somehow be able to struggle through the tough descision of deciding what to have for dinner all by herself if she was hungry enough, or if you weren't around.
I am talking about really important descisions, like if you are going to move, or buy a house, or have a child, or have an elderly relative move into your house, or change jobs.
If your wife and you have equal say in these descisions, and your life and her life are equally important, then you have a partnership.
If, ultimately, you as the man always get the final say in the major life descisions, then you are not equal, and you are more of a parent, and you have control.
quote:
We have a mutual agreement about this because we both believe that this will lead to a healthy relationship. She is not my "lap-dog", nor is she silenced under oppression.
Again, the statistics do not support your point of view, although you may be less strict than the groups I mentioned.
Also, oppression can be a subtle thing; if you are always the leader, and you always have the final say in the big descisions, she is effectively silenced and oppressed.
quote:
I guess it's how you look it. You have to look at how the New Testament lays out marriage as a whole . Yes it says that the man is to the be head of the household. It says more than that though. You can't just stop there and say "See!? I disagree with the entire New Testament because that right there is a contradiction to modern philosophy." That's like saying "See!? There's not enough dust on the moon's surface, therefore the theory of evolution is proven false!" without even attempting to explore more of the data presented. (I'm sure you can relate to that analogy.
Well, I certainly agree that there are some beautiful things about love in the Bible, but let's face it, women are not really considered much of value in the Bible as a whole. They are taken as the spoils of war quite often, and there are rules about how much they are worth in trade, and there are lots of rules about what to do with them if they are adulterous or are raped. Things get a little better in the NT, but they aren't considered to be equal in value or importance to men at all.
quote;
This directive mentions nothing about a mutual submission or understanding.
quote:
The New Testament as a whole outlines the foundations of a healthy marriage. It doesn't say that you are forced to follow it. Nor does it say that a man is to dominate everything. It simply says that marriage tends to be healthier if those guidelines are followed. And that's practical. If there is agreement and communication in a relationship, then it is healthier.
I dunno.
It puts women in a terrible place, and men, too.
In order to be a good christian, women must want to let their husbands be the leader all the time, and they must make themselves submit to his leadership.
In order to be a good christian man, a man must want to lead all the time, and he must make himself be married to someone he can always, ultimately, tell what to do.
quote:
The concept of marriage is supposed to be a binding commitment. That's the key: Binding. Two people becoming like one unit. To do that, there must be love, sacrifice, commitment, understanding, and communication.
I agree wholeheartedly there, but why put all that unneccesary gender role stuff in there? Are all men better leaders simply because they have testes, and are all women better followers simly because they have ovaries?
There's that broad brush again, only it's you using it.
quote:
It clearly puts the woman in the role of always submitting and the man in the role of always leading.
quote:
Both parties do submit to each other, and the man does lead.
I'm still not getting the submit/lead thing. How does one do that at the same time?
quote:
But the woman is not inferior, nor is she child-like and submissive if both parties agree on the arrangement to build a healthy family.
mmmm, I don't understand.
I take that back. I would understand in an employment situation where there is a team of workers and a team leader. The leader can lead effectively only if the rest of the team agrees to accept her as leader.
What I don't understand is how this translates to a modern personal relationship. I mean, the only time people in my personal life have ever "led" me were when I was a child. When I became an adult, I made my own descisions about my life. When I got married, my husband and I made, and make, descisions together.
Neither of us "leads" the other. There is no need for a "leader" because both of us are full adults, wanting the best for each other and each valuing what is important to the other. It would insult me greatly if my husband thought he had the right to simply overrule me in any big descision. It would violate our partnership and our mutual respect.
™ Version 4.2