Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Wives submit to their husbands...

168 replies

Gillian76 · 27/08/2006 11:34

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?

OP posts:
slug · 29/08/2006 15:56

There are loads of contradictions in the bible. Check out the sceptics bible

Astrophe · 29/08/2006 16:25

I've seen things like this before slug These objections CAN be answered, and have been, by intelligent, learned people with many more degrees under their belts than me! But if you go into things trying to prove them wrong you can pick holes in anything can't you?

expatinscotland · 29/08/2006 16:28

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

Yes, this is true, Twiglett.

Hence, I no longer practice organised religion.

MrsBadger · 29/08/2006 16:39

Am not a fundamentalist but am a fan of stripping back to the bare essentials:

What did Jesus have to say about people who got bogged down in following the letter of the law?
Nothing very flattering.

Did he follow the strict religious rules of the time?
No.

What did he say was the greatest commandment? The one about women having long hair? The one about the shellfish? The one about keeping the Sabbath holy?
No.

So what did he consider the greatest commandment?
Love one another.

Says it all really.

I think it's a shame that the Bible has little nuggets of such brilliant concepts and ideas surrounded by great screeds of, if not actual rubbish, then at least irrelevancy. Christianity has a fantastic core and some less fantastic things that built up around that core.

Tommy · 29/08/2006 16:57

brilliant MrsBadger (as I would expect )

texasrose · 29/08/2006 21:53

Hi there, new mumsnetter here.
I'm a committed evangelical/kind of mildly charismatic christian in the CofE (along the Soul Survivor lines if that means anything to anyone!)
I've been thinking about this whole issue a lot recently because I'm thinking of becoming a vicar - specifically a hospital chaplain. My dh is behind me 100% and the CofE is happy to be ordaining women but I still have a nagging fear that I won't be taken as seriously as a bloke. I said this recently to a bishop's wife (who is ordained herself), expecting her to say "oh don't be silly" but she said "hmmm, yes, I see what you mean, that is a problem" She went on to say that if it does turn out to be what God leads me into, my desire to serve will be my focus and not what some people might think.
Anyway, you're right, at the centre of it all must be love without which we are nothing.

foundintranslation · 29/08/2006 21:55

Fab post MrsB.

ja9 · 29/08/2006 22:01

good post mrsb.

welcome to MN texasrose

slug · 30/08/2006 12:57

Please go ahead texasrose. Despite being a dyed in the wool atheist, some of the most inspiring Christians I have ever met have been woman vicars. The church needs women like you to provide a counterpoint from the sexism that pervades it.

beckybrastraps · 30/08/2006 13:11

I am catholic. Dh is anglican. When we went along to see the priest for our marriage prep, dh was prepared to be very understanding about not having "obey", only for the priest to point out to him that that is not in the catholic marriage service, and in fact there is a prayer which makes clear that the wife is the equal of the husband and he really ought to remember that.

moyasmum · 30/08/2006 15:46

This is a lovely discussion!
bbs - We had a similar discussion during our marriage preparation talks(years ago).We were reminded of all the things we associate with marriage , which are actually unnecessary. Eg wedding rings,name changes (the actual wording of the order of the mass asoposed to the popularly understood vows) and so on.By paring it down to the genuine committment we were embracing ,we were expected to make real grown up choices and examine our consciences .

texasrose · 30/08/2006 20:26

Yes this is a lovely discussion!
Slug, thank you so much for your vote of confidence! Whatever anyone says, it's a scary thing venturing out into a 'man's world' and you need confidence in your God-given talents and qualities.
See ya soon...(over the moon, as ds would add!)

JWwearingTrousers · 30/08/2006 20:35

Just had to post, chocybickie, I am a JW and I want you to know that I am sitting here wearing my trousers as we speak.

We do believe that our attire should be modest at all times and when engaging in our ministry/attending our meetings we dress in a smart way according to the customs of our land, in the UK that tends to be women wearing skirts/dresses, men in suits, although in Africa it may be the men that are in the dresses. There are no rules in the Bible, other than neat, well arranged and modest.

nearlythree · 30/08/2006 20:57

texasrose, you will encounter horrendous sexism in the CofE, but IME the evangelical wing is better than the Anglo-Catholic. I once considered the priesthood but have left the church, partly because of the sexism. The fact that the church is still debating women bishops is just mad. You can get some good books on the experiences that women have had in becoming priests, one is called 'Jobs for the Boys?'. The women priests I know are all fantastic. Best of luck and I hope that the Spirit guides and strengthens you.

bloss · 31/08/2006 04:22

Message withdrawn

nearlythree · 31/08/2006 08:28

But Bloss, Jesus was continually attacking the purity system of the Pharisees. The Good Samaritan is just one example. He tells the Pharisees that they tithe to meet the law and so neglect God's justice. Jesus breaks the purity laws by eating with the unclean. He 'works' on the Sabbath. It's pretty clear that Jesus had his own ideas about which laws mattered and which were man-made burdens.

Loving Jesus is about loving other people. It's not about dogmatic obedience to something that is both inaccurate and very often opposed to Jesus' teachings on love, compassion, justice and the Kingdom of God. Far too many people claim to have Jesus in their lives because they follow the Bible to the letter and so end up doing great damage. If people really feel close to Jesus then it is because something about the way in which they live their lives, in terms of love and compassion, has let him in.

MrsBadger · 31/08/2006 08:43

I'm really sorry if I've been inaccurate here Bloss.

I have read the Bible extensively for many years and have found some parts more valuable than others. I appreciate this leaves me open to the accusation of 'picking and choosing my texts', but I feel I gain more, and get closer to God, by making my own judgements on these things than by accepting dogma.

The texts I had in mind for Jesus being unflattering about the letter of the law were his comments about Pharisees who thought they were great because they appeared to be so virtuous and did everything 'right' in public, but were actually evil on the inside. I appreciate he wasn't dissing people who were devout inside and out, but I think the point he was making was that it's possible to go through all the right motions and obey all the laws and still not have got the point.

The 'following strict religious rules of the time' bits that occurred to me was the time in Mark when Jesus and the disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath because they picked some corn to eat when they were going through the fields and Jesus told them that the Sabbath was made for people and not vice versa. Ditto when he healed someone on the Sabbath.
All the references to 'eating with sinners and tax collectors' strike me as likely to run against Kashrut as well.

I'll fess up to being wrong about the commandment one, but the verse I had in mind was the one from Mark that goes 'to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices'.
The inference I draw from this, which I realise you may not share, is that one should accept the greatness of God, but respond to that and worship him by loving others rather than in public and outward displays of devotion.

I appreciate that you consider that "It's not enough to 'love' Jesus in the sense of thinking he's a nice guy with a few wise words" but for people like me struggling to come to terms with organised religion and/or the divinity of Christ I think it's a pretty good start.

nearlythree · 31/08/2006 08:57

MrsBadger, I se no inaccuracies in what you say.

Have you read Marcus Borg? I think you'd really enjoy his books.

bloss · 31/08/2006 09:33

Message withdrawn

bloss · 31/08/2006 09:39

Message withdrawn

Tortington · 31/08/2006 10:07

yawn yawn yawn arggh arghh arggghhhh
not read last few posts - for fear of being dragged into wider " the bible is shit" debate.

however the bible was written at a certain time in history. therefore it reflects certain things about society at that time.

soiety has evolved however the bible cnnot evolve because if someone came along now and said " god told me to make some updates" he would be committed.

why then can't you use your religeon to just lead a good life. be good to other people and tell your husband you will do respect but not obeying.

i am 100% confident that the bible is a template for a good life wrapped in text some historical some stories. none to be taken to the letter.

However in your situation. i would find another church and see how your dh fares not being the celebrity catholic.

you celebrity church types piss me off anyway.

MrsBadger · 31/08/2006 10:27

(thanks for the tip on Marcus Borg, NearlyThree - have now read a few of his online articles and am v impressed. Methinks a visit to the library is in order!)

bloss · 31/08/2006 11:00

Message withdrawn

Tortington · 31/08/2006 12:42

living a good life knowing that i have jesus and god makes me luckier than those who don't realise about jesus and god yet.

i dont think religeon is irrelevent i think its an excellent conduit to helping many people lead a good life.

its rather like staying slim and healthy.

we all know how to achieve it - but its really not that easy.

plus you can lead a good life without having any form of spitituality - which IMPO would be rather sad.

being a good person an leading a good life - boy if it were as easy as some propose i reckon god would be out of a job.

Astrophe · 31/08/2006 13:12

Custy, why would it be 'sad' to lead a 'good' life without being spiritual?

plus you can lead a good life without having any form of spitituality - which IMPO would be rather sad.

If, as you seem to be saying, the 'spiritual' is simply the history which happens to surround the moral message of the Bible, then surely it doesn't matter whether you are spiritual or not?

I'm just not sure why anyone would place any importance at all on 'spirituality' or indeed religion, if they don't actually believe that the Bible is true.

(BTW, I don't think theres any chance of you being drawn into a 'Bible is s* dabate, as thats not what being debated here anyway! Bloss, Mrs B,Nearly3 and others are having an intelligent debate which I for one am very interested in! )