Wives submit to their husbands...

[Gillian76]

Have just heard this reading at church and been a rguing with DH. How can I be part of an organisation that teaches:

"SECOND READING Ephesians 5:21-32

Give way to one another in obedience to Christ. Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits~ to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything."?

And this is what it said to the husbands...

"Husbands should love their wives just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her to make her holy. He made her clean by washing her in water with a form of words, so that when he took her to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless. In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a man to love his wife is for him to love himself. A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christ treats the Church, because it is his body - and we are its living parts. For this reason, a man must leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one body"

Don't feel like I needed to be cleaned before he took me to himself...

And what's more, the priest totally avoided the issue, choosing instead to preach on the other readings.

I have a HUGE problem with this and being part of an organisation that thinks we are not equal to men. What's more I cannot bring my daughters up to believe this.

DH however is staunch Catholic and wants ut to go together.

How can we find some common ground on this?

you need to convert to Judaism

if a husband fails to please his wife in bed its grounds for divorce

hi i am reading an excellent book which encorporates a whole load of what you are bringing up its called marriage as god intended by selwyn hughes (i have been wondering alot of the same things), its a christian book and its absolutley sound as a pound and brilliant. def worth buying!

all organised religion is MAN'S (as in male priests, rabbis, shamans etc) WORDS AND INTERPRETATIONS though .. so it will undoubtedly be sexist

hi i apprec what twiglett is trying to say but i have found the book to be VERY good and you sound like a lady who can discern pretty well anyway... ateast it tackles what you are bringing up somewhat x!

Well, we arent equal in may respects.

I dont fully understand the prose (its far too long winded for me) so i get the general gist....

But like with so many things in religion, you take what you want/need from it and leave the bits you dont like so much

(will leave it there I think......)

I'm not religious myself, but I think it's perfectly OK to call yourself a chrsitian and yet not agree with all of the teachings of the bible, especially the teachings of St Paul. the epistles are not the gospels after all.

there must be liberal catholic priests out there you can talk to?

What does your dh say?

I'm CofE. My take on passages such as this is alsmost certainly regarded by many as a cop-out, but it is that the Bible, to whatever degree it was inspired by faith, is a historical document, that was written (and not only written, but compiled and edited) by people acting in a particular historical and cultural context, which leads to particular views being reflected in its content. Other examples are the OT prohibition on eating certain things including shellfish.

I also think it is possible to be part of an organisation (for it is true that the church is an earthly organisation as well as being a divine body) without necessarily agreeing with all of its views and actions - as long as the fundamentals are there. If someone, of course, regards aparticular issue as being too fundamental, then he or she would leave the organisation (as indeed some Anglicans sadly did over women priests). What I would go on, in your situation, is not the reading iself, but the way in which women are treated in church life in your parish: are they included, is what they say listened to, taken seriously? Do you feel comfortable in the congregation, do you get some kind of spiritual comfort or inspiration out of going to church?

One of ds's godmothers has been Catholic all her life, is a feminist, has a lot of trouble reconciling herself to a lot of aspects of the official Church, but stays in the church through her faith and because it is despite everything something of a spiritual home for her.

moDJ, the phrase "sound as a pound" never inspires confidence in me, its a bit, Derek Trotter.....

It's not just this one particular teaching. the attitude permeates the whole organisation IMO.

Whilst I appreciate that men and women are different in terms of genetics and certain characteristics of personality, I do think that in terms of our value as humans, we are mose certainly equal.

I feel that in the catholic church, women are perceived to be subserviant to men.

The writer defines the Christian faith by gathering various traditions and conventions from Hebrew culture. The Christian community was divided, even in this early stage. There was talk of schism. Non-Hebrew Christians had begun to separate from Hebrew Christians. The writer uses the Haustafe, or house-rules, that governed the mutual relationships within Hebrew families (vv.21-24).
The author expands on the section of these rules on the relationship between husbands and wives. This proved useful for the writer's purpose. That purpose was to illustrate the Christian community's relationship with Christ, their relationship to one another and their relationship to God's wider purpose. The author reflects the thinking and sociological structures of the time of writing. The climate was overwhelmingly patriarchal. The Haustafel injunctions for wives to be submissive is frequently taken out of this context by modern Christians. Understanding the injunction as a remnant of outdated cultural and sociological patterns, allows us to hear the real message of the writer -- a message about preserving the unity of the community! The author in fact, modifies the patriarchal code by replacing patriarchal domination with the Christian command which the writer repeats three times. Husbands are commanded in vv.25, 28 and again in v.33 to love their wives, ". . , according to the example of Christ".
Elizabeth Schussler Florenza says: "The patriarchal-societal code is theologically modified in the (writer's) exhortations to the husband. . , Jesus commandment 'love your neighbour as yourself' (Lv.19:18) is applied to the marriage relationship for the husband (Eph: 5: 29-32). The relationship of Christ to the Christian community becomes the example for a husband. Christ's self-giving love for the Christian community is to be the model for the love relationship between husband and wife"!

And for a good few years I've been unsure of the spiritual benefits and comforts I reap from going...

Have been going for the sake of unity with DH

I think then, Gillian, it depends on whether you can find a way of living with the official attitude while partaking in a more liberal practice (see what I said about what life is like in your parish) - but if the whole thing is too insurmountable for you, then surely dh will have to respect that? (I'm married to an atheist/humanist so have a lot of practice in mutual acceptance and tolerance )

Another set of ds's godparents are Old Catholic - you might be interested in them.

Maybe, if the priest avoided preaching on this reading, he doesn't agree with it personally?

Our PP preached on this this morning, I would love to tell you what it was about, but one of the more elderly members took a funny turn and I was pressed into action, so missed the rest of the homily.

He said that in his opinion, it was all about respect within a marriage, about listening to each other and having due regard for your DH or DW as people and not just as partners.

Gillian76

Do you get nothing at all from it ??

My DH comes with me when I ask him and says he loves the sense of community that he gets when he walks in and people are greteing each other.

Thanks for your thoughts girls.

Am away to do some housework just now but will come back and digest what you've said later.

This makes me

Gillian76, "Men love your wives and wives submit to your husband" or equivalent is one of the more controversial teachings of the church. I have a bit of difficulty with it as well - ol' Sunday Christian that I am - and mostly not even that!

Try not to think too much about the literal meaning, My belief is that Love and Submission balance out in the wash. Love being the greater burden because it carries more responsibility (all tied up with the "man is the head of the household" business) whereas the wife just submits. It is really who holds the trump card in a major situation of statement between a husband and wife - eg whether to live in one country or migrate to another. If the husband insists X, then the wife must submit. But if the wife submits unhappily, then the husband who loves her must take her feelings into account. And not insist on a choice which would make her deeply unhappy.

If you see it in the context of parent/child v. husband/wife, would you as a parent make your child do something that your child seriously protests against. If you insist on it for his/her own good, it would hurt you as much as if not more than the child. But if you could, you would not insist. See, the injunction to Love carries a heavy burden ...

Not much, LGJ...

It's a fairly big parish and not much going on. DH feels "part of it" because his family are one of the better known families IYSWIM.

Gillian, what does your dh say

• about the reading
• why he absolutely wants you to go together?

oops, "major situation of stalemate ".

BTW, my husband is also Catholic (not staunch) and if he pulled this "wives submit to husbands" thing on me, I would probably knee him!

if you want to try and accept it perhaps it might help to know that those values were written in a different time where women weren't considered equals at all. times have changed but the message remains: stay together, look after each other.

i couldn't accept it. it seems i could bypass a lot of the questionable Christian/jehovahs witnesses teachings but as soon as it became clear that women had to wear skirts at all times to remain feminine i laughed the idea out of my head immediatedly.

Exactly Blue Shoes the reading were written in a time when all of society was Patriarchal.

Oh God I wish I could remember more of the Homily.

Our PP is a converted Anglican and as such is married with two children, he understands married life and this makes my relationship with the Church so much easier.

I sit near the front, (if DS can see what is going on he is better behaved) and at that line wives submit to husbands, I made the fatal mistake of looking at the PP, and he looked me straight in the eye and mouthed now, I gave him one of my Paddington Bear hard stares and he looked away, struggling not to laugh.

off topic slightly but a comment further down made me remember a documentary on the Jewish religion. I found it very odd tbh.
Is it true that women have to be submerged in water after their period otherwise men can't touch them?

I am not religious at all and that is the first time i have seen that verse.

but i would say that as Chocky has already pointed out, these verses were written a very long time ago when life was incredibly different.
it doesn't mean that the teachings are wrong or irrelevant now, just that you should look at the deeprer meaning.
read between the lines.

i read that verse as saying that women should love their husbands and husbands shold love their wives.
both completley. it says that they should love each other the way they love god, completley and wholeheartedly.

don't take it so literally.
most of the bible is stories of things that (however much we try and beleive) we know can't possibly have been true, but we understand that its more about the meaning behind the story....the underlying moral issue.

try reading it again, but this time without looking at the words literaly

Our PP didn't spell it out in his sermon, but I think he definitely had that reading in mind when he preached that you could remain true to your faith while disagreeing with or not understanding parts of Jesus' (or, presumably St Paul's) teachings. Personally, I always switch off for the second reading if it's one of St Paul's letters. He gets further up my nose than Annabel Karmel. And I'd need a lobotomy to get her down from there.