| Author | |
Bridget
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2198
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 6:55am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
MicheleQ wrote:
Now, as I understand it, mutual submission of the spouses isn't meant to signify the submission of authority one to the other, but rather the total gift of self on the part of each of the spouses.
|
|
|
No wonder i couldn't get what the theologians mean when they use the term 'mutual submission'.
Now I think I understand what they mean, but the terminology is still confusing to me.
When husbands live out Paul's command in marriage, they are in submission and obedience to God, not their wives.
__________________
God Bless,
Bridget, happily married to Kevin, mom to 8 on earth and a small army in heaven
Our Magnum Opus
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bridget
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2198
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 7:26am | IP Logged
|
|
|
MicheleQ wrote:
Beyond that, and this is where we veer off from our Protestant brothers and sisters, husbands and wives are to hold one another accountable to this call.
God bless,
|
|
|
I understand, clearly, that our main goal in marriage should be to help each other attain salvation. Is that what this statement means?
Where is mutual accountability taught? Is it from a general instruction to Christians, or specific to husbands and wives?
I'm sorry Michele, I know you are at the end of pregnancy and I'm dragging this all over the place. But I keep ending up in conversations about submission and I need to understand what modern theologians are saying. I am more familiar with older writings on the subject as they are usually more clear and direct.
__________________
God Bless,
Bridget, happily married to Kevin, mom to 8 on earth and a small army in heaven
Our Magnum Opus
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Philothea
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 15 2006
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 824
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 9:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kim F wrote:
Agreed. However I think where most discussions about wifely duty derail is when they begin to focus on what the man is supposed to do. Really it is irrelevant to our part of it. We each have a call. The men are not off the hook if their wives are bitter, lazy, or gossips or whatnot. Likewise we have our own call and it is not dependent upon whether our husbands appear to be worthy of our submission, devotion, etc. We are simply to see them as Jesus for us, as Bridget's mom described, and serve as best we can because it is our part, not because they have earned it.
Kim |
|
|
I totally agree. I just wanted to point out that Jesus DID in fact submit to the Church and that's what mutual submission should look like. I agree with a previous poster who said it's mutual submission to GOD -- not each other.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 9:37am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Bridget wrote:
| Where is mutual accountability taught? Is it from a general instruction to Christians, or specific to husbands and wives? |
|
|
Reading on this subject, I guess there is some groundwork yet to be laid down on this? From what I understand, John Paul II interpreted the first section of the Ephesians 5 passage "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." as the opening of the specific words about husbands and wives. Instruction to Husbands and Wives
Quote:
The author, addressing husbands and wives, recommends them to be "subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (5:21)....The mutual relations of husband and wife should flow from their common relationship with Christ. The author of the letter speaks of the "reverence for Christ" in a sense analogous to that when he speaks of the "fear of God" |
|
|
But it is obviously also intended as an instruction for Christians in general.
John Chrysostom writes:
"Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband's part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield." (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)"
This seems to imply that the "love" and "submission" are entry points, in a way, to the goal of a proper reciprocity. ... perhaps the mutual self-donation that Michele was talking about.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 9:48am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Bridget wrote:
No wonder i couldn't get what the theologians mean when they use the term 'mutual submission'. Now I think I understand what they mean, but the terminology is still confusing to me.
When husbands live out Paul's command in marriage, they are in submission and obedience to God, not their wives. |
|
|
I do wonder if submission isn't the best word to use. While it IS a form of submission it also seems to lead to some confusion because we automatically think of it as a submission of authority. Maybe it's an American thing - or a translation one.
Bridget wrote:
I understand, clearly, that our main goal in marriage should be to help each other attain salvation. Is that what this statement means? |
|
|
Yes I think so. One of the ends of marriage as Aquinas defines it is "the good of the spouses" (I had a class on marriage and annulments this past weekend where this was explained very well and helped me to understand the whole annulment thing is a way I hadn't before...but that's another thread). The good of the spouses in so far as their santification and salvation.
Bridget wrote:
| Where is mutual accountability taught? Is it from a general instruction to Christians, or specific to husbands and wives? |
|
|
Well we see it in the writings of some Saints and Church fathers.
excerpted from The Authority of Women:
Quote:
Augustine recognized that the mutual authority spouses have over each other's body is the foundation of marital equality. He teaches, based on 1 Corinthians 7:4, that a husband could not make a vow of perpetual continence without the consent of his wife.
In Augustine's sermon "To the Married" he is adamant that wives not tolerate infidelity from their spouses. (18) Augustine tells Christian husbands that they are under the guardianship of their wives, and he says to the wives:
"Do not allow your husbands to fornicate! Hurl the Church herself against them! Obstruct them, not through the law courts, not through the proconsul...not even through the Emperor, but through Christ...The wife has not authority over her body, but the husband. Why do men exult? Listen to what follows. The husband likewise has not authority over his body, but the wife...Despise all things for love of your husband. But seek that he be chaste and call him to account if his chastity be amiss...
Who would tolerate an adulterous wife? Is the woman enjoined to tolerate an adulterous husband?...Those of you who are chaste women, however, do not imitate your wanton husbands. May this be far from you. May they either live with you or perish alone. A woman owed her modesty not to a wanton husband but to God and to Christ."
Augustine teaches that wives can call their husbands "to account" if they fail in chastity. He sees specific warrants for female authority in the area of chastity. Chastity is one of the three goods of marriage taught by Augustine. It, along with the goods of children and indissolubility, is of the essence of the marital bond.
The wife has authority to require her husband to live up to these, and her authority covers any of his spousal duties. A wife is not only there to serve her spouse. A wife's vocation means she has the authority to call her spouse to serve her and their children in his vocation as husband and father. This is the true sense of male and female authority. Equality does not mean that the man and woman have the same responsibilities. They don't. But the man and the woman have an equal authority to lead each other to fulfill the vocations to which God has called them.
The Letter to the Ephesians says:
Wives should be submissive to their husbands as if to the Lord because the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of His body the Church, as well as its savior. As the Church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. He gave Himself up for her to make her holy, purifying her in the bath of water by the power of the word to present to Himself a glorious Church, holy and immaculate, without stain or wrinkle or anything of that sort.
Husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Observe that no one ever hates his own flesh; no, he nourishes it and takes care of it as Christ cares for the Church - for we are members of His body. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall be made into one. This is a great foreshadowing; I mean that it refers to Christ and the Church"(Eph. 5:22-32).
Not only are we in desperate need of a good theology of submission, but we are in need of a good theology of male authority based on the teaching of Ephesians 5. Yes, wives are instructed to be submissive to their husbands, because the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is head of the Church, but the husband is also instructed to love his wife.
What does love mean but to give oneself over to another? The husband is to give himself up for his wife as Christ gave Himself up for the Church. This is a form of submission - a form as deep and as serious as the submission of wives. The husband's reciprocal submission to his wife is the only way her submission could make any sense. In the Christian religion, obedience and submission to another's authority is never due to tyranny or despotism, but to love and a covenant between persons that respects the freedom of each.
John Paul II called the teaching of Ephesians the "Gospel Innovation" because for the first time the truth about men and women is revealed. A mutual submission exists between spouses. The wife is not to submit to a spouse who lords his authority over her. Not at all! He is instructed to give himself up for her. In the Christian dispensation, husbands are expected to do something entirely new based on the example of Christ and the sacramental role of the husband in making Christ real in the world: fully to serve their wives - instead of wives simply serving and obeying them.
It is important to notice that the instruction to wives on being submissive to their husbands is not unqualified. They should be submissive to them "as if to the Lord." Submission is based on the one-flesh nature of Christian marriage, in which it is presupposed that husbands will love their wives as Christ loves His Church. The wife also has authority. She is the body of her husband, as verses 28-29 state. As the body is in a one-flesh unity with the head, she can and must call her husband to do what the head is supposed to do in the fulfillment of this living sacrament of Christ and the Church.
Husbands and wives do not have authority for the sake of exercising power over each other. If this were the case their relation would be one of constant tension and disharmony. Authority and submission exist to create a one-flesh unity. Authority exists to serve the bond. It is exercised for the good of the bond, so that the marriage will be a good marriage, so that the spouses can do what is good for their marriage together. The person who exercises authority does not do so for the sake of being served. It is exercised so that his marriage may be served.
What does all this authority and submission mean in practical terms? Let me give some examples. If the wife is in the habit of spending money in a manner detrimental to the family budget, her husband can require that she cease doing so - and she should obey. If a husband does not want to work and so is neglecting his duty towards his wife and children, his wife can require that he go out and get a job, and he should obey.
If the husband or wife is becoming an alcoholic or a drug addict, the spouse should require that he or she get proper treatment, and the impaired spouse should obey. If a spouse is doing something immoral, such as using contraception or cheating on the income tax, the other spouse can and should exercise authority and require that this immoral behavior be stopped. |
|
|
Bridget wrote:
| I'm sorry Michele, I know you are at the end of pregnancy and I'm dragging this all over the place. But I keep ending up in conversations about submission and I need to understand what modern theologians are saying. I am more familiar with older writings on the subject as they are usually more clear and direct. |
|
|
No apology needed Bridget. I need to understand all this too and it's sparked some really great discussions between my 21 yr. old son and I.
God bless,
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 10:06am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa writes:
<<If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield." (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)" >.
This makes sense. Each focuses on their own part. As a result the other will usually be compelled to do the same. This is the example of married saints like St Rita, St Monica, Blessed Anna Maria Taigi. They did not, however, claim authority over their husbands' behavior and I sincerely doubt that doing so would have endeared them to the wives' cause.
Agreed, occasionally there is a serious crime such as adultery or substance abuse that should be addressed. One might still wish to consider that these problems, though not necessarily caused by the wife, do not usually happen in isolation. Rgardless, most women are dealing with more mundane issues and again focusing on the extreme scenarios only serves to divert our attention from the tasks at hand.
I have seen all manner of distress in marriages where women sought to enlighten their husbands and 'help' them to fulfill their roles better. Several times it began with sincerely religious women who read a LOT and felt they knew better than their men. Twice it ended in divorce.
On the flip side I have seen marriages completely turned around by true humility and constancy on the wife's part. The woman convicted her dh by her example. That can take a lot of years. Still, if we are to really help one another it seems better to lead by example imo.
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 10:12am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kim,
I know of a marriage much like your last example. The wife 'kept her eyes on her own work', was steadfast in HER role. She loved her husband unconditionally (and the conditions were not good!), She kept a constant novena to St. Joseph for 3 years straight. Now, 10 years and 6 children later (they have 10, 9 living), he credits his conversion to her constant and enduring example of love. They are a beautifully holy family, a great example to us younger couples. I never tire of hearing their story!
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 10:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kim F wrote:
| Agreed, occasionally there is a serious crime such as adultery or substance abuse that should be addressed. One might still wish to consider that these problems, though not necessarily caused by the wife, do not usually happen in isolation. Rgardless, most women are dealing with more mundane issues and again focusing on the extreme scenarios only serves to divert our attention from the tasks at hand. |
|
|
I would agree that too much focus on such scenarios is distracting but they DO need to be addressed because they are indeed real (keeping in mind that there are many who read here yet never post). What I am trying to stress is that a woman can still do everything right and her husband because of free will may choose not to do his part. Why is that important? Because it's incredibly painful to women who live that reality (I know several) and the way it is promoted here (as in here where I live) espeically among the Amish and Mennonite communities is that if a husband isn't living up to his part it is somehow the woman's fault because she isn't being submissive enough! This has led to some truly sad and horrendous things as women who have come forward about abuse (of all kinds) of thier children and themselves are sent back to their husbands with the message that they must simply be more submissive. That is wrong! Yes my examples are extreme but it's also a reality I see and one that I feel called to point out lest we should ever allow ourselves to fall into this kind of thinking.
Forgive me please if I seem over zealous but the stories I have heard along these lines are simply heartbreaking.
Kim F wrote:
I have seen all manner of distress in marriages where women sought to enlighten their husbands and 'help' them to fulfill their roles better. Several times it began with sincerely religious women who read a LOT and felt they knew better than their men. Twice it ended in divorce.
On the flip side I have seen marriages completely turned around by true humility and constancy on the wife's part. The woman convicted her dh by her example. That can take a lot of years. Still, if we are to really help one another it seems better to lead by example imo. |
|
|
But of course it doesn't have to be an either or situation. I can think of at least two marriages I know of where neither women allowed their husbands to continue in serious sin (one adultery, the other a serious addiction) and it was through their "tough love" coupled with humilty and constancy to loving those men that in the end won them over. Both marriages were saved and both men have become examples of holiness to all.
God bless,
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 11:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Honestly I am not trying to be contrary here. To me the point is not whether tough love or submission will change the man. The point to me is that it is irrelevant in the end. We are only responsible for ourselves.
I had a friend years ago who read all the submission materials. She totally misunderstood the purpose though, which is to fulfill OUR obligation before God, NOT to achieve a particular end with a man. She was always weighing her submission against her husband's behavior which was futile and frustrating. (they are also divorced now)
In my own marriage we have gone through some incredibly trying situations. Growing up together is not easy.I married an 18yo boy. It was the blind leading the blind and we ran down some dark alleys along the way. So I don't mean to paint an over-rosy picture. We have been through the ringer and back. That boy turned into an incredible man though thank God.
Msgr Landriot in Valiant Women often refers to St Monica who had a notoriously volatile, non Catholic husband. She saw his conversion in the end. If the situation absolutely warranted it then she would wait until he collected himself to present her case to him but she was apparently very careful not to abuse that option. On almost all occasions she counseled women to keep their tongues.
This is crucial imo. Regardless of whether we have a right to force an issue, the truth is very very few people - men or women - ever change because they were pressed to do it. If so, and particularly in cases of substance abuse or the like, then the risk is incredibly high that there will be relapse. Change has to come from within. We can exercise our position to express our concern but we are kidding ourselves if we think that we can insist upon change and it will occur successfully and permanently. Pop psychology and daytime tv encourage women to insist upong these things. How many men are grateful for that? It usually ends in divorce and the loss of his soul.That is why I would encourage other women to set example primarily. Its just more effective. Tough love backfires as often as it works. Just depends upon how predisposed that person already is to change.
And like I said, ultimately it is irrelevant. We are each accountable, in my opinion, to God for our roles. We can't always know when conversion will take place or if it will. We may not know the fruits until we are all in heaven. It may not even be ours to know. All we can know for sure is our own hearts and master our own behavior.
Like cloistered nuns who serve their fellow sisters, regardless of their disposition, we are called to serve in our vocation. If the other person chooses to be ugly it will weigh against him in eternity, not us. We are not ultimately serving that person for his own sake. We are serving as though he were God because it is that daily self-denial that perfects souls.
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
hylabrook1
Forum Moderator
Joined: July 09 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5980
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 12:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
There is a problem in using the word "submission", because it is commonly understood, and taught by some churches or individuals,as meaning that the wife is supposed to obey her husband in all things, be tied to a very particularized and limited role, not really contribute to the culture of the marriage (for want of a better term) because she is to be "seen and not heard." Little value is placed on her unique personality or her unique input/contribution to the marriage or family.
It is pretty unfortunate that the use of the word "submission" carries this kind of baggage. The idea of "mutual submission" takes into account the gifts of each spouse, to the family and to one another, in building the family and encouraging one another, with the goal being one another's growth in holiness. In looking out for the other spouse's growth, it is sometimes wise for one spouse or the other (more like both, at different times and in different situations) to defer to the other, to do what the other needs or wants rather than what one feels like doing or enjoys the most. This is a place where we all need to call on the grace we received in the Sacrament of Marriage, for the wisdom, insight, and humility that the Holy Spirit can give us in living out our marriage vows.
The "danger" in offering ourselves to our husbands in this way is that we make ourselves vulnerable to the imperfections inherent in all human beings. We try to be completely, selflessly open to another person who at times is not going to respond perfectly to the gift we are offering him; likewise, we often don't respond well to the gifts our husbands offer us. How thankful this makes me for the gift of the Sacrament of Penance!
Thank you, Michele, for sharing the passage from "The Authority of Women." For me , at least, this is a very clear explanation of much that is being discussed on this thread.
Peace,
Nancy
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bridget
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2198
|
| Posted: Nov 07 2006 at 12:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Here is an article that looks at the major writing on submission throughout Church history.
The Authority of the Husband According to the Magisterium
__________________
God Bless,
Bridget, happily married to Kevin, mom to 8 on earth and a small army in heaven
Our Magnum Opus
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 10:44am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kim F wrote:
| Honestly I am not trying to be contrary here. To me the point is not whether tough love or submission will change the man. The point to me is that it is irrelevant in the end. We are only responsible for ourselves. |
|
|
Are we? Are we not our brother's keeper and isn't it part of the marriage vocation to do whatever we can to help our spouse attain Heaven? Beyond that what about our children? You are right that things don't happen in isolation and neither do they affect only the spouse as there are certainly repercussions for children, as many of us can attest to.
I'm not trying to be contrary either (and I didn't think you were so let's just assume good will since I think we're all just trying to do our best to understand and live this message.  ) but I keep coming back to the thought that someday I will have to stand before God and answer for what I did or did not do to help my family get to Heaven. Granted there's a line and as long as I fulfill my part I cannot be responsible for someone else's behavior. But sadly as a woman who struggles with concupiscence I know that I often don't do my best.
I think we could all come up with examples of ways that worked or didn't work. Saint Monica's way of handling her husband wasn't the same as St. Margaret's. Both converted their spouses but temperament and circumstances made for different methods so we really can't point to one as being superior to the other.
I agree that insisting someone change won't work but I also think that holding someone to a higher standard with love and compassion can - at least that's been my experience. My dh has told me that there were things I have said that did in fact stick with him and make him want to try - if only for love of me. Now, his example to me is so beautiful that he inspires me to try and be holier.
But my point from joining this conversation was that the message of how a woman is to understand her role needs to be understood in the context of what is universally true. Which I think is so beautifully said in the Vatican II quote I posted earlier: "You women have always had as your lot the protection of the home, the love of beginnings and an understanding of cradles. You are present in the mystery of a life beginning. You offer consolation in the departure of death. Our technology runs the risk of becoming inhuman. Reconcile men with life and above all, we beseech you, watch carefully over the future of our race. Hold back the hand of man who, in a moment of folly, might attempt to destroy human civilization. Wives, mothers of families, the first educators of the human race in the intimacy of the family circle, pass on to your sons and your daughters the traditions of your fathers at the same time that you prepare them for an unsearchable future. Always remember that by her children a mother belongs to that future which perhaps she will not see."
And that the practical applications of this won't look the same for everyone. Not that I think sharing ideas isn't helpful but that we need to remember to keep our focus on what God is asking of us and not assume that if a woman doesn't fit a particular mold (be it perfumed handkercheifs or gourmet dinners every night ) that she isn't fulfilling her vocation.
God bless,
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 12:08pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think we have to agree to disagree on the mutual submission. Even the article Bridget sent asserts that it is almost impossible to read that into the original verses. Like I said earlier I do think that most often by humility and charity and service we model that perfection that impels men to strive for nobility.
The the point of the story imo is how to truly help men. It is too easy to stereotype feminine women as not helping because traditional women's work is scorned in our day. A women doing manual or office labor looks helpful particularly if she exhausts herself. The story asked us to consider whether that is really helping in the end or if it is subtly sending the man the message he cannot proide on his own. It also points out that it is the rare woman who can do those jobs and still truly make a man's house his haven and his children a source of pride.
We don't need to rebuke men to help them improve. We can model. Ditto the children. And I think its especially crucial that we do not lump men and children into the same categories. To me, the story's point is that the women gave their men the confidence they needed to excel. Those women believed in their men. They made themselves beautiful - and perfumed - not to be vain or shallow but to be a source of pride and pleasure for those men. That is a noble thing, not to be brushed aside as superficial.
Our individual circumstances may vary - I have milk goats, you are in a city etc. However many many things are common to all women in all places and ages. Keeping a lovely home (castle or cottage), being an inviting partner, raising solid children, are universal for most of us. Not to mention being feminine and modest and humble. I dont see that that part has to be so very different in the end.
Perhaps it is archaic of me but I just don't see a wealth of examples of women in authority over men that worked. Yes, a subtle well placed message here and there as Monica demonstrated can plant seeds that eventually bloom into change. But the type of firm insistence and physical work contemporary women are encouraged to exert seem to be generally counter productive.
I also worry about the attitude so many women tend to take of "Do I actually HAVE to serve?" What is the worst thing that could happen? When I said be responsible for ourselves of course that meant be responsible for our own service to our husbands. We are responsible for their care. We cannot shirk that no matter how many abstract theology texts we can find. We sacrifice and we serve or we fail to work out our salvation.
We are not responsible for their behavior however. God gave us all free will. Good behavior that is enforced will not ultimately benefit them the way good behavior thats inspired in the man by our example will. That is how I see us as their keepers, by first being Keeper of the Home. It sounds so simple, yet in the end it all starts there. Providing a base to launch from, a haven to return to, open arms to comfort.
I need to run now since its errand day here.
Kim : )
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 12:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kim F wrote:
The the point of the story imo is how to truly help men. It is too easy to stereotype feminine women as not helping because traditional women's work is scorned in our day. A women doing manual or office labor looks helpful particularly if she exhausts herself. The story asked us to consider whether that is really helping in the end or if it is subtly sending the man the message he cannot proide on his own. It also points out that it is the rare woman who can do those jobs and still truly make a man's house his haven and his children a source of pride. |
|
|
This is a nice summary of the story for me, Kim.
It looks like you are talking priorities. Woman's natural role as the "heart" of the family taking precedence over her economically useful activities.
In the story, though, the women both had to NOT-submit to their husbands in order to get the feminine priorities straight. The wealthier woman said that her husband asked her to help him and she said no. The farm woman dropped the tomato-canning in order to focus on the home comforts.
That confused me in the story and made it seem like a bit of a double message. If we are to truly submit, aren't we to obey where it's not sin? It sounded like those women decided that they understood what their husbands really wanted, in spite of what they SAID they wanted. So the message of the story to me wasn't submission but possibly more like you say elsewhere -- a woman's and man's ontological role in a marriage.
This left an open question in my mind. Not expecting you Kim or anyone to clarify it but it did bother me. The story was not really about submission in the sense that I understand it, at all.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 1:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
WJFR wrote:
| In the story, though, the women both had to NOT-submit to their husbands in order to get the feminine priorities straight. The wealthier woman said that her husband asked her to help him and she said no. The farm woman dropped the tomato-canning in order to focus on the home comforts. |
|
|
It confused me, too, Willa and I really struggle with the idea that women know better than men what men want from them. I understand that some men might not have a working concept in their brains of a womoan who fulfills a traditional woman's role, but I don't think we can paint with that broad a brush. I think she could have taken care of those tomatoes and been a very good, traditional wife.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bridget
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2198
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 1:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
| I think she could have taken care of those tomatoes and been a very good, traditional wife. |
|
|
thats where those children come in!
I think the main 'turn around' in the story was not what she did but how her attitude changed. She became upbeat and cheerful,that made a difference to everyone around her.
__________________
God Bless,
Bridget, happily married to Kevin, mom to 8 on earth and a small army in heaven
Our Magnum Opus
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 1:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kim F wrote:
I
We don't need to rebuke men to help them improve. We can model. Ditto the children. And I think its especially crucial that we do not lump men and children into the same categories. To me, the story's point is that the women gave their men the confidence they needed to excel. Those women believed in their men. They made themselves beautiful - and perfumed - not to be vain or shallow but to be a source of pride and pleasure for those men. That is a noble thing, not to be brushed aside as superficial. |
|
|
I think this is the key point. Whether it's marriage or parenting or friendship, I think we go a whole lot further in helping someone to be holy if we truly believe the best about them and act as if they are that best, even if they are (temporarily ) not at their best. I don't think rebuking is effective and, indeed, it often destroys the trust in a relationship, thereby pushing the other party away. We can't do much to help (and we are to be helpmeets) if we've so hurt our spouses that they don't trust us (they are afraid of us--[articularly of our words) and we've so undermined their confidence in themselves that they are hopeless.
A house well-kept and a woman well-kept says to a man that they are worth the effort. You wouldn't open the door for a first date or a second date with someone who interested you wearing sweatpants and dirty hair. Doesn't the love of your life deserve the same respect?
In my case, my husband went throught a very long spell where work exhausted him and he really missed his family. To come home to a dirty house and wild children was the most discouraging thing of all. He would think, "Why am I working so hard to pay for this house that no one cares for and why do these children for whom I am flying all over the country not follow my simple rules?" Now, I was trying to care for the house (remember I was all alone and we know how hard it is when dad's away). I could have be rightfully angry at his self-absorbed analysis of the situation. And I was hurt but as soon as a I recognized the problem (his hurt and his loneliness), you can bet I focused all my energy on recifying it. And along the way, I took a good look at myself as well. I really, really concentrated on those homecomings (which at the time took place at 12:30 AM every week after flying from LA). Did this home and the people in it welcome him? Did it/we honor him and the work he'd done? Did it give him confidence and inspire him?
I could have told him he was missing how hard it was to be alone all week with seven kids and to keep juggling everything in his absence. I could have whined about broken appliances and all the "dad chores" that didn't happen because he was never home. But I was determined not to rebuke and only to encourage and to be a source of pride.
I'm not the rebuking type. It doesn't come naturally. Perhaps that is because I know how much it hurts me to be rebuked. Some of this is probably a temperament thing. And my husband does not respond well to rebuking, nor do my children. They recoil and then they (at least mentally) begin to defend themselves. It doesn't open them up.I think I can bring about change more effectively without rebuking. I am a huge proponent of dialogue though .
We are supposed to help our spouses and our children get to heaven. For me, the most effective tools I have for that are prayer and example.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 2:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Bridget NAILED it!! The turning point was when she smiled, combed her hair, put on a skirt and cleaned her kitchen. Had she not been so back-logged, she would've been able to tend to the tomatoes that day also. Had she trained the children to help with chores, she would've been able to run the apples to town, etc...
I know the days I get out of bed, and don't dress until after lunch, don't have a loose plan for the day, let the children watch too much PBS, etc... I REGRET it the next day, and my husband comes home to a grungy wife, wound up children, and a medicore lunch and dinner. (through His grace, these days happen less and less the more I embrace my role in our marriage)
But, if I get up, put on a skirt, comb my hair, play with my children, work with my children, do an extra chore out of love for my husband, prepare a nice meal, and SMILE AND LAUGH more, my husband comes home BEAMING!!
I tend to agree with Kims point of view. Sometimes I think we (a general 'we') get so caught up in the husbands role in marriage, or we try to 'cushion' the message of a wifes submission by accentuating the man's role, that we forget, or overlook the woman's role.
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 2:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I forgot to add in my last post that I have simply been amazed with what I am able to accomplish when I do my job to the fullest, and I can only do my job to the fullest when I know exactly what my job is!
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lissa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: Nov 08 2006 at 3:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
I'm not the rebuking type. It doesn't come naturally. Perhaps that is because I know how much it hurts me to be rebuked. Some of this is probably a temperament thing. And my husband does not respond well to rebuking, nor do my children. They recoil and then they (at least mentally) begin to defend themselves. It doesn't open them up.I think I can bring about change more effectively without rebuking. I am a huge proponent of dialogue though . |
|
|
Well said. Dialogue is one thing, and rebuke (both the articulated kind and the silent, expressed-through-gesture kind) is quite another. It wasn't until I'd been married over a decade that I realized I *am* the rebuking kind--or I used to be. A certain expression on my face, a pointed look at the thing in the hall he was supposed to move but hadn't yet, a few "gentle" words about what he "needed" to do...there are a thousand subtle ways to quietly rebuke a husband. I thought we had a perfect marriage--we were such good friends, so crazy in love--and it WAS good, but there was tension, always tension over this little thing or that, small conflicts marring the peace of our time together.
What changed for me was coming to the understanding that while we are partners, yes, he is the SENIOR partner. I am his helpmeet, not the other way around. For an empowered girlchild-of-the-80s like me, that was a hard concept to wrap my head around. I hadn't realized that I just took it for granted that MY agenda was the one to follow because, gosh, I'm the one who does the planning and scheduling, etc etc. It struck me like a bolt from the blue that almost every conflict we'd ever had, all those quiet tensions, were due to my irritation over his not having done things MY way.
When I finally got it through my head that "wives, submit" meant me too, and that my role was not to dictate (even sweetly) what HE ought to be doing, but rather to ask myself every day, "what would he most like me to do?"--that was a major turning point in our marriage. I think that before, I was on the way to being his mother. Now I am truly his wife. And we are both happier, more in love than ever. He respects me immensely--he always did--but I think now he respects himself more, too.
I think the thing about being a husband's mother is that he can get stuck being a boy. When you're his wife, he becomes a man.
When I beam at him when he walks in the door, his heart soars, and every night he is eager to cross that threshold.
lisbet wrote:
| But, if I get up, put on a skirt, comb my hair, play with my children, work with my children, do an extra chore out of love for my husband, prepare a nice meal, and SMILE AND LAUGH more, my husband comes home BEAMING!! |
|
|
Yes, that is so very true!!
__________________
Lissa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Forum Locked) 
4Real Forums : Tea and Conversation
Topic: What men really want.
