Skip to main content

 

Understanding Submission

 

Posted By Lauren Davis On August 30, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Featured on Front Page,Good Lovin’,Parenting & Family,The Marquee

 

“Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands.” 1 Peter 3:1.

This scripture verse often brings up many different reactions among both

women and men.  What does the word submission mean to you? Recently

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann was asked this very question during

a Republican debate. Her response: “what submission means to us is… respect.

 I respect my husband…and he respects me as his wife.”

Saint Paul gives us a little closer look in

 

Ephesians 5:22-24, “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,

his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives

also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

 

The idea of wifely “submission” or wives being “subject to” their husbands

often leaves women feeling inferior.  However, if we break the word

submission down, we can find a completely different understanding. 

Submission breaks down into the prefix “sub” meaning under or below,

and the root word “mission” meaning a specific duty assigned to a person. 

If you put these two words together, you find that submission means that the

wife is called to be under the mission of her husband.

 

What is the mission of her husband? What specific duty is given to husbands?

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up

for her.” Eph. 5:25.  The mission of every husband is to love his wife—

to lay down his life for her, as Christ did for the Church. From this perspective,

 submission should be something that every woman does happily because

it is really all about allowing her husband to love her.

 

Although this sounds like an easy task, accepting true, sacrificial love is

 much more difficult than you think. In order for the wife to really allow her

husband to love her, she must abandon her own insecurities and the invisible

 walls she has put up around her heart.  She must let go of the fear that

her husband might not love her the right way, and instead give herself to

him completely. 

 

The wife must trust that her husband will lead her closer to Christ

and help her get to heaven. Of course, this trust is something that

the husband earns through the constancy of which he strives after

his mission. Every husband should be seeking to love his wife with

a self-sacrificing love in which he surrenders his pride,

and instead seeks to do what is best for his wife.

 

The truth of the matter is that true submission is incredibly challenging,

especially in today’s self addicted society. In fact, to really love in this

way is impossible without Christ!  Jesus is the one who provides trust

for the wife as she lets go of her own will and allows her husband to love her,

through leading her and her family. It is Jesus who gives the husband the

strength to lead his wife, and the grace to surrender his

own will for the betterment of his family.

 

On the night before Jesus died, he said to his apostles,

“This is my body, which will be given for you.” Luke 22:19.

At this moment He shared a sneak peak of how much He loves us,

His church. Husbands and wives must follow the Lord’s example,

and lay down their bodies, their wills, and their entire lives for one another.

Then, and only then, will submission be lived out in the way it was intended.

 

This article originally appeared in the August 2011 edition of

The Family Encourager; a free monthly e-newsletter developed by the

Christian Center for Youth and Family Health. To begin receiving

The Family Encourager, please go to

 http://www.ccyfh.org/newsletter-sign-up.html [1] to join the email list.

 

Lauren Davis is a wife and mother who resides in the Dayton, Ohio area.  She and her husband are the founders of a new non-profit organization called the Christian Center for Youth and Family Health (visit www.ccyfh.org for more information).  She is also in her fifth year of teaching at Ohio Connections Academy, a virtual charter school.

 

.

 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

Many who denigrate that verse don't comment on the next--that Christian husbands are to love their wives enough to give their lives for them.

 

Interestingly, our English word "husband" is a contraction for the words "house" and "band." Literally, husbands hold the house together.

----------------------------------

I agree Fire, as Paul said

” Eph. 5:25.  The mission of every husband is to love his wife—

to lay down his life for her, as Christ did for the Church.

 

.

 What does the word submission mean to you? Recently

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann was asked this very question during

a Republican debate. Her response: “what submission means to us is… respect.

 I respect my husband…and he respects me as his wife.”

 

 

She needs to get a dictionary and look up the words submission and respect.

 

 

 
 

Best,

In a truly atheistic society you have no moral obligation to your husband let a-lone be in submission to him.

He does not have an obligation to be faithful to you. On the contrary he should be out passing on as many copies his genes as is the case in the non-religious species of lower animals.

You actually are in his face and interfering  in his daily life to restrict his breeding in any way.

Do you agree or not? If you don’t agree you are arguing the very opposite of evolution’s position that animals purpose is to propagate not invent morality.

Atheists have morals as good or better than christians. We don't have that screwy idea of a  "go to guy" that's gonna wipe our slate clean. We know we are responsible for our own actions. Even though you might call yourself a christian, your wife, if there is such an unlucky woman, can cheat on you, and you can cheat on her if there's another woman desperate enough to take you on. I can't imagine a woman being submissive to any man, or any kind of a man that would insist a woman be submissive to him unless he's an abuser, and if she stays in an abusive relationship she deserves what she gets. Want to see a lower animal buff? Look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by okuok:

Best,

In a truly atheistic society you have no moral obligation to your husband let a-lone be in submission to him.

--

 

Bullspit.

 

-=

He does not have an obligation to be faithful to you. On the contrary he should be out passing on as many copies his genes as is the case in the non-religious species of lower animals.

 

---

Bullspit.

--

You actually are in his face and interfering  in his daily life to restrict his breeding in any way.

Do you agree or not? If you don’t agree you are arguing the very opposite of evolution’s position that animals purpose is to propagate not invent morality.

---


I will agree that, generally speaking, a man is probably a little more prone, evolutionairily speaking, to be more unfaithful that females.  We were made that way as a survival trait.  It worked well for a few million years.

But we have no evolved legal systems and contracts that make the penalties for being unfaithful a little more harsh than long ago. 

If what you said were true, one should find a direct correlation between religious beliefs and divorce rates.  I'll see if your theory is supported by the stats.  What would you bet that atheists or "non religious" tend to be more faithful than their religious counterparts?  I got a dollar on that. 

Well, according to this Faith-based website, divorce rates are about the same, more or less:

http://www.barna.org/barna-upd...-statistics-released 

 

Divorce Among Adults Who Have Been Married

(Base: 3792 adults)

Population SegmentHave Been DivorcedNo. of Interviews
   
All adults33%3792
   
Evangelical Christians26%339
Non-evangelical born again Chrisitans33%1373
Notional Christians33%1488
Associated with non Christian faith38%197
Atheist or agnostic30%269
All born again Christians32%1712
All non born again Christians33%2080
   
Protestant34%1997
Catholic28%875
   
Upscale22%450
Downscale39%367
   
White32%2641
African-American36%464
Hispanic31%458
Asian20%128
   
Conservative28%1343
Moderate33%1720
Liberal37%474

Hi all,

 

Has anyone else noticed how our non-believing Friends can take a sunny day -- and turn it into a mud-sloshing, rain-washed, gloomy day?  While I realize they believe they are happy -- their lives seems to consist of only negative thoughts.   But, we, as Christian believers must realize they are like the person who has pain, but refuses to see a doctor to have it diagnosed -- afraid of the truth. 

 

My non-believing Friends, even cancer can very often be healed -- but, first, you must accept that you have cancer -- and then, seek the healilng.  In you cases, the only healing is a big dose of God, Jesus Christ, and His Written Word, the Bible.

 

Take one big dose everyday -- and again before bedtime.   You will be amazed at His healing powers.

 

To all my Christian Friends -- watch out for flying rocks -- especially those with "Bill Gray" written on them!! 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

Well, according to this Faith-based website, divorce rates are about the same, more or less:

http://www.barna.org/barna-upd...-statistics-released 

 

Divorce Among Adults Who Have Been Married

(Base: 3792 adults)

Population SegmentHave Been DivorcedNo. of Interviews
   
All adults33%3792
   
Evangelical Christians26%339
Non-evangelical born again Chrisitans33%1373
Notional Christians33%1488
Associated with non Christian faith38%197
Atheist or agnostic30%269
All born again Christians32%1712
All non born again Christians33%2080
   
Protestant34%1997
Catholic28%875
   
Upscale22%450
Downscale39%367
   
White32%2641
African-American36%464
Hispanic31%458
Asian20%128
   
Conservative28%1343
Moderate33%1720
Liberal37%474


_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Unless these stats show the REASON for these divorces, this chart does nothing to bolster your point. We were discussing faithfulness, and as we all know, there are many reasons to get divorced besides unfaithfulness.

Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

Unless these stats show the REASON for these divorces, this chart does nothing to bolster your point. We were discussing faithfulness, and as we all know, there are many reasons to get divorced besides unfaithfulness.


------------


That's beside the point.  I was responding to the deluded half-wit who claimed that atheists were more likely to be unfaithful to their spouse.  

The data does not appear to support that claim.   

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

Unless these stats show the REASON for these divorces, this chart does nothing to bolster your point. We were discussing faithfulness, and as we all know, there are many reasons to get divorced besides unfaithfulness.


------------


That's beside the point.  I was responding to the deluded half-wit who claimed that atheists were more likely to be unfaithful to their spouse.  

The data does not appear to support that claim.   

____________________________________________________________________________
 
The data you provided does not support OR REFUTE that claim. As I said, unless you can provide information about the percentages of each group who were UNFAITHFUL, the data you provided are meaningless in the context of this discussion.

 

Originally Posted by O No!:

Oh yeah, and please, don't EVER claim that you don't insult Christians. Invictus is NOT a "deluded half-wit". 

 

--

 

Never said such a thing, Ono.  I said I didn't call YOU stupid. People like Invic and Magpie are a different story.

 I am certainly guilty of insulting Christians simply by existing. I take that further by calling BS on idiotic claims that atheists are less moral that the deluded masses.

Originally Posted by okuok:

Best,

In a truly atheistic society you have no moral obligation to your husband let a-lone be in submission to him.

He does not have an obligation to be faithful to you. On the contrary he should be out passing on as many copies his genes as is the case in the non-religious species of lower animals.

You actually are in his face and interfering  in his daily life to restrict his breeding in any way.

Do you agree or not? If you don’t agree you are arguing the very opposite of evolution’s position that animals purpose is to propagate not invent morality.

_______

Didn't God say "go forth and multiply"?   Weren't people in the Old Testament polygamists?  Sounds like God was on evolution's side..... until he changed his mind.

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by O No!:

Oh yeah, and please, don't EVER claim that you don't insult Christians. Invictus is NOT a "deluded half-wit". 

 

--

 

Never said such a thing, Ono.  I said I didn't call YOU stupid. People like Invic and Magpie are a different story.

 I am certainly guilty of insulting Christians simply by existing. I take that further by calling BS on idiotic claims that atheists are less moral that the deluded masses.

_____________________________________________________________________________
 
Just a few minutes before you posted the above, you posted this: I've NEVER called you or anyone else here "stupid."
So, either you lied, or you have some sort of short-term memory loss.
Then again, maybe you're just "stupid"....

 

The claim was that an atheist has no moral obligation to remain faithful to his wife.

The moral obligation to remain faithful to a wife comes from the Bible not from genetics. This a testable fact.

Darwin evolution insists that in fact the male should pass as many copies of his genes as possible, not to hinder the propagation process.

I know several atheist and without exception they are all unfaithful to their wives.

Really they are just doing what comes naturally. Living uninhibited by morals forced on their daily lives by believers.

....

………as a matter of fact it would be child abuse for the atheist to teach children or young adults that they should remain faithful once they became married. That decision should be guided by the animal in them.

………….but, as our friend Mr. Dawkins warns:

My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

Unfaithfulness certainly had to be a concern of dawkins.

Originally Posted by okuok:

....

………as a matter of fact it would be child abuse for the atheist to teach children or young adults that they should remain faithful once they became married. That decision should be guided by the animal in them.

………….but, as our friend Mr. Dawkins warns:

My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

Unfaithfulness certainly had to be a concern of dawkins.

---

This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.

http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Dawkins.htm

Robustus I see you have posted that twice I assume by your insistence you agree with Dawkins and me it would be a NASTY place to live.

Really a simple proof of Dawkins’ premise is to observe the nastiness of the handful of atheists on this forum. None of you can post without being nasty. Dawkins realizes the nasty will just jump out and therefore a nasty place to live.

Since you atheists are already nasty you wouldn’t notice a change.

as a matter of fact it would be child abuse for the atheist to teach children or young adults that they should remain faithful once they became married. That decision should be guided by the animal in them.

 

 

Well, since my children have no animal in them I feel confident they will be fine in their marriages and all aspects of their lives.  Maybe therapy could help you and your children with the animal behavior problem. If not, there are dating sites online for married christians that want to cheat with other married christians. But I bet you knew that already.

 

My husband fell in love with me of his own accord. I didn’t “allow” it, it just happened.  There is no need for me to “submit”. When I was a child I had to yield to the power/authority of my Dad, because I was just that…a child. I am now an adult, I have given birth, I can keep our home clean, I can cook a meal, & more, all without any instruction from my husband.

 

Accepting true, sacrificial love isn’t difficult at all. There are no insecurities & invisible walls around this heart.  I love my husband with all my heart & would give my life for his in an instant. Why would any wife that truly loves her husband, fear him? My husband & I are secure in our love/trust of each other.

 

Why would any woman need her husband to lead her to Christ & help her get to Heaven? If she has any sense, can read, has the desire to be a Christian, she can do it on her own. What about the Christian women that has a husband that is a non-believer? They evidently got to that place w/o the help of her husband.

 

My husband has no need to surrender his pride to do what is best for me. If both truly love each other, doing best for the other comes easily & naturally................any pride is intact.

 

Originally Posted by O No!:
Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
____________________________________________________________________________Just a few minutes before you posted the above, you posted this: I've NEVER called you or anyone else here "stupid."
So, either you lied, or you have some sort of short-term memory loss.
Then again, maybe you're just "stupid"....
----
 I then qualified that by stating that I might have called Bill stupid.  And, yes,  I think others are, too.  But not you. Not B50.  And I've never said "all Xtians are stupid."  NEVER.
Get a grip, Ono. I haven't called you stupid but I do reserve the right to do so.  If you want to call me stupid, fine by me.  
Good grief, how old are you anyway? 

 

Originally Posted by okuok:

The moral obligation to remain faithful to a wife comes from the Bible not from genetics. This a testable fact.

Darwin evolution insists that in fact the male should pass as many copies of his genes as possible, not to hinder the propagation process.

----

See here, Ono?  THIS is stupid.  I posted a nicely detailed study that contradicts this stupid assertion and Chucky still ignores the facts and is wholly ignorant of biology and even common sense.

Chuck, Darwinian evolution doesn't "insist" anything.  It's all about survival.  In a completely amoral (that means "neutral with respect to morality) sense, evolution will propagate the genes to the next generation by whatever means is available.  So, yes, most species are in fact amoral and do, in fact, have relations with as many females as possible.  But we humans (and some birds and other animals) have evolved the concept of "commitment."  We have made it so that the price of straying outside of the contractual commitment is a greater threat to our survival than having sex with whatever walks.


Yes, if we were 100% slaves to our genes we would all have multiple wives (as in the bible) and kill those who dare to try to have sex with our property (as in the bible).  Men would have to marry the woman he raped (as in the bible).  But our morality has evolved, thankfully, from the morals espoused in the bible so that even thinking of apply biblical "morality" to modern society is just plain, well, stupid. 


I'm curious where you get this data for your "testable fact,"
 

Man, Fire, tough question.  You may as well ask if I believe nature is stronger than nurture.  That is a question that may never be resolved.  There is also a related  branch of science called Evolutionary Psychology.  Some think it a bogus science. I think it is valid.  Our behaviors, our morals, were constructed by nature layer upon often-contradictory layer in an imperfect, often random fashion that has resulted in the imperfect, random nature of morality we (believers and non believers) experience every day.

 

Nurture  often serve to counteract those natural tendencies.  We men (and women) have been "nurtured" to mate with one wife which is against the natural tendancies to procreate with whatever walks.  Nurture generally works to overcome this tendency. Generally.


I think it is of vital importance to understand that nature designed all of of for one purpose: propagation.  EVERYTHING we do centers on that foundational need.  All our laws, all out morals, all our needs to "succede" all have a root motivation in reproduction.  I find that quite fascinating.  In that respect, one could argue (quite successfully I think) that if we are to have some sort of moral standard, it will naturally be centered on reproduction - what is best for the long term survival of our species.  

 

In practice, this is quite difficult but certainly seems more logical than trying to apply biblical principals to 21st century social norms.

 

Go ahead, test me: Give me a moral dilema, I bet you I can give a reproductive-based solution to the issue. 

 

.... It seems that I didn't directly address your question in all this but sociobiology is an astoundingly complex and fascinating topic that will be controversial for the foreseeable future, I think. 


Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

       

         class="quotedText do_rounded_div_css_ffsafari_tl do_rounded_div_css_ffsafari_tr do_rounded_div_css_ffsafari_bl do_rounded_div_css_ffsafari_br">
       
Originally Posted by okuok:

The moral obligation to remain faithful to a wife comes from the Bible not from genetics. This a testable fact.

Darwin evolution insists that in fact the male should pass as many copies of his genes as possible, not to hinder the propagation process.

----

See here, Ono?  THIS is stupid.  I posted a nicely detailed study that contradicts this stupid assertion and Chucky still ignores the facts and is wholly ignorant of biology and even common sense.

Chuck, Darwinian evolution doesn't "insist" anything.  It's all about survival. Y yes uno copies of genes = survival  In a completely amoral (that means "neutral with respect to morality) sense, evolution will propagate the genes to the next generation by whatever means is available.  So, yes, most species are in fact amoral and do, in fact, have relations with as many females as possible.  But we humans (and some birds and other animals) have evolved the concept of "commitment."  We have made it so that the price of straying outside of the contractual commitment is a greater threat to our survival than having sex with whatever walks.


Yes, if we were 100% slaves to our genes we would all have multiple wives (as in the bible) and kill those who dare to try to have sex with our property (as in the bible).  Men would have to marry the woman he raped (as in the bible).  But our morality has evolved, thankfully, from the morals espoused in the bible so that even thinking of apply biblical "morality" to modern society is just plain, well, stupid. 


I'm curious where you get this data for your "testable fact,"
 

Originally Posted by okuok:
Also uno I think you have an axiom in your responses. Anything you say must contain some sort of denial of God imbedded in you posts regardless of logic or truth.

---

This is the religion forum where science is often discussed.  You are obviously ignorant of scientific facts and, instead , fall back on your sky fairy to provide answers that you are too lazy to find for yourself.  So, yes, my reason for frequenting this forum is to defend science and deny invisible men in the sky. 

You stated, "The moral obligation to remain faithful to a wife comes from the Bible not from genetics. This a testable fact."

I am still awaiting your response for how to test this goofy hypothesis.  You are talking to an atheist that has been stupendously and faithfully happy for a very long time.  

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by okuok:
Also uno I think you have an axiom in your responses. Anything you say must contain some sort of denial of God imbedded in you posts regardless of logic or truth.

---

This is the religion forum where science is often discussed.  You are obviously ignorant of scientific facts and, instead , fall back on your sky fairy to provide answers that you are too lazy to find for yourself.  So, yes, my reason for frequenting this forum is to defend science and deny invisible men in the sky. 

You stated, "The moral obligation to remain faithful to a wife comes from the Bible not from genetics. This a testable fact."

I am still awaiting your response for how to test this goofy hypothesis.  You are talking to an atheist that has been stupendously and faithfully married for a very long time.  

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×