DavidHaan
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2003, 09:15:31 am » |
|
also, during the time period of the new testament churches, it was social custom or punishment, whatever, that the women prostitutes shaved their heads. The church, deciding to separate themselves, required women to have their heads "covered." (The simplest cover of course would be their own hair). So, it doesn't say that *another* cover is needed. That's how I feel about the whole "head covering" thing.
david
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Railrider
Guest
|
|
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2003, 11:19:13 am » |
|
Hey Dave, right on!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nate Dogg
Guest
|
|
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2003, 08:33:37 pm » |
|
Has anyone bothered to look at what the word submission ACTUALLY means?
sub·mis·sion
(click to hear the word) (sb-mshn)
n.
The act of submitting to the power of another: "Oppression that cannot be overcome does not give rise to revolt but to submission" (Simone Weil).
The state of having submitted. See Synonyms at surrender.
The state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.
The word does not at all imply a loving relationship-- submitting the POWER of another:
power is defined as:
The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural: her powers of concentration.
Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might. See Synonyms at strength.
The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.
the third and fourth definitions are telling as to the patriarchal cultural context of submission. You cannot finesse this by saying that it needs to be a loving relationship, because the very act of submission implies inequality and eros naturally kicks against this. Sure, you can say that husbands need to love their wives, but this is eesentially putting wives at the mercy of what their husband feels is love. Maybe he feels its love to not allow her to work or drive a car-- how do we contest that in light of this verse? I have struggled with this issue a long time and can only conclude that taking it to its literal conclusion can only lead to the horror stories mentioned on this website. The exceptions to this rule, the gentle husband that auntie fluffy mentioned are only good husbands to the extent that they DONT follow these instructions. Please do not feel as if I am attacking anyone's marriage as oppressive because they submit to their husband. It is their choice, some of the time. I only want them to be aware that these scriptures simply cannot serve as a guide for the marriage relationship.
peace and blessings,
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jesusfreak
Guest
|
|
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2003, 09:42:20 pm » |
|
the third and fourth definitions are telling as to the patriarchal cultural context of submission. You cannot finesse this by saying that it needs to be a loving relationship, because the very act of submission implies inequality and eros naturally kicks against this............ I only want them to be aware that these scriptures simply cannot serve as a guide for the marriage relationship.
So.....we submit ourselves in humility and meekness before God, and that is a relationship of Love. I am not at all condoning the abuse of a spouse, nor am i encouraging a husband to force submittion on their wife. Just offering a counter-point where submittion DOES happen in Love. Needless to say, a holy matrimony should be centered in God - meaning everything WOULD be done in love, including whatever compliance the wife would have to the husband. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wmathews
Guest
|
|
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2003, 09:59:10 pm » |
|
I would agree that the greatest example of submission motivated by love is the relationship of Jesus Christ with His Father. He always did those things that please the Father. Just because we have so completely misapplied and failed at this example, does it invalidate it for any application? As G.K. Chesterton said (I paraphrase): 'The Christian life has not been tried and found wanting, the Christian life has been found not wholly tried..'
I speak from scripture and also from experience: 23+ years of marriage to a woman whom I love more than ever (Nate's mom) and who stands in respect of my decisions, not blindly, but in a way that makes me more effective as a husband and dad. We have 23+ years learning this, and it is still a goal, we have not arrived, yet I know we are moving in this direction as a Christ-like model. I have to respectfully disagree with my son, and can only say the models to represent the blend of submission with love are flawed, except one: Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Toni Fuller
Guest
|
|
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2003, 10:35:14 pm » |
|
I'm sorry, but I don't feel like having a piece of cloth on my head ever made a difference. I feel that as long as my life backs up with I believe, then God isn't gonna send me to hell for not wearing a piece of material.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Haan
Guest
|
|
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2003, 11:10:48 pm » |
|
maybe we should check the original Greek  on what the greek word that was translated to "submission" really meant. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jesusfreak
Guest
|
|
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2003, 11:21:59 pm » |
|
maybe we should check the original Greek on what the greek word that was translated to "submission" really meant. not a bad idea |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
psalm51
Guest
|
|
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2003, 12:14:35 am » |
|
I'm sorry, but I don't feel like having a piece of cloth on my head ever made a difference. I feel that as long as my life backs up with I believe, then God isn't gonna send me to hell for not wearing a piece of material.
Toni and all, I have to admit there were times when wearing a head covering seemed very extreme ie. during seminars when Mr. G preached, or during a wedding. I was told once that sisters should not take off their head coverings until all the announcements were made on Sunday morning or until the brother closed pre-prayer with comments. Why? Never got a good answer on that one. Nate, Remember that in Ephesians 5:21, the verse preceding the one about wives submitting, it says " and submit to one another in the fear of Christ."- indicating a mutual submission for the good of the relationship. It works. Love you, Mom |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
psalm51
Guest
|
|
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2003, 02:29:11 am » |
|
[quote - Now, Pat, I was there when you got all goofy about Wayne, and all that, and this is part of the trouble piece that you got. It's my opinion, by the way, that he got the bigger trouble. Marriage IS trouble, and we ought to admit it to these young people.
Did I say marriage was not trouble? It's also work, but that's not all bad either. Did you get "all goofy about your wife?" What do you mean by "the trouble piece that you got." from, 'the bigger trouble" p.s. maybe it would be better if you pm me on this  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joseph Reisinger
Guest
|
|
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2003, 02:52:45 am » |
|
Dave, Just a question in light of your earlier post. also, during the time period of the new testament churches, it was social custom or punishment, whatever, that the women prostitutes shaved their heads. The church, deciding to separate themselves, required women to have their heads "covered." (The simplest cover of course would be their own hair). So, it doesn't say that *another* cover is needed. That's how I feel about the whole "head covering" thing. If this is so.. then in the preceding verses.. are we supposed to take this one.... 1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. to mean that all men should shave their heads so they are not 'covered'? because by implying that the only covering Paul was talking about was hair.. then you would have to come to that conclusion. Joseph R |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Toni Fuller
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2003, 07:20:42 am » |
|
I truly don't see where this is an issue that would decide if you have fellowship with other believers or not. It appears that there are and will continue to be many opinions...and who really cares?? It's not that big a deal really !!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Railrider
Guest
|
|
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2003, 09:25:38 am » |
|
to mean that all men should shave their heads so they are not 'covered'?
because by implying that the only covering Paul was talking about was hair.. then you would have to come to that conclusion.
Joseph R
In the Darby translation, 1 Cor 11:14-15 says 'Does not even nature istself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him? But woman, if she have long hair, [it is] glory to her, for the long hair is given [to her] in lieu of a veil.' ...Which I would interpret as meaning that men should have short hair, and women's hair is their 'headcovering' which is why they shouldnt chop it all off . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nate Dogg
Guest
|
|
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2003, 11:39:26 am » |
|
Thanks mom and dad!
I love you guys!
And because I have to have the last word...I'll just raise the question of how we know whether or not to take things literally. Sure, loving relationships grow in the context of submission and love. But happy relationships and equally happy marriages grow in the context of non-submission all the time. I frequently submit to my girlfriend. She sometimes does not submit to me. We have a loving relationship. And amybe you say, oh you're young and in love and you dont know. But I honestly believe some of you have the idea that a happy and successful marriage cannot happen without submission.
peace,
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Railrider
Guest
|
|
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2003, 11:42:44 am » |
|
thanks for your contribution- well, my point there wasnt about what Darby thought, rather, that was the translation I had on my desk . And as to replacing the word veil in other places in the chpt., it cannot be done, for it is only written that one time. in the new american standard it reads 'for her hair is given to her as a covering.' to me thats the same thing..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
