Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Tortington · 31/08/2006 13:18

god no - spirituality is another side of a person completely - some use crystals, some tarot, some are phychic, some cuddle lady birds..... its not about the bible. although it is for some.

nearlythree · 31/08/2006 14:57

Bloss, you misunderstand what I am saying about feelings. I make no comment about morality; what I am saying is that it is perfectly possible to experience (a better word than feel) the presence of Jesus without following dogmatic religion, and that therefore there must be something about how that person lives that enables that. I also disagree that 'feelings' are unreliable when it comes to faith generally. My reasoning is often that I can't believe any of it; it is only the experience I have had of feeling God's love (or sometimes only the memory of the experience) that keeps my faith alive.

The 'something' I refer to is just that: 'something', whether the OT law or dogmatic Christianity, both of which often overlook justice and compassion. I mention tithing because it is unjust to expect someone to tithe and then starve.

Yes, the Pharisees did expand the law (much like many contemporary church leaders do) but the essence is much the same.

I don't believe Jesus really did say everything he is supposed to have said, including the part about fulfilling the law. I've concluded this after a lot of thought and study, and as you know I've had to give up believing in a lot of things that were precious to me e.g. the Nativity. Maybe I am totally wrong but it is the only way for me.

rustybear · 31/08/2006 15:56

Bloss - you say Jesus objected not to OT law but to "the body of regulations the Pharisees developed around it. If this is OK, why can't people today object, not to Jesus' word but to the 'body of regulations' that Paul developed around it?

Astrophe · 31/08/2006 16:50

sorry custy, don't think you answered me...am not stiring btw, am genuinely interested.

bloss · 31/08/2006 20:44

Message withdrawn

bloss · 31/08/2006 20:51

Message withdrawn

bloss · 31/08/2006 21:07

Message withdrawn

rustybear · 31/08/2006 21:18

O.K, not entirely serious here, but speaking as a historian who's been trained to mistrust uncorroborated accounts: Paul claimed to have been appointed by Jesus. As far as I can tell from the Bible story, Paul's conversion could have been a story cooked up between him & Ananais - maybe he saw converting to the cult he'd been persecuting as an opportunity to subvert it to his own ends.....

bloss · 31/08/2006 21:26

Message withdrawn

bloss · 31/08/2006 21:29

Message withdrawn

rustybear · 31/08/2006 21:55

Even if Paul did genuinely believe in his vision and undergo a change of heart from spiritual motives, that still doesn't mean that all the laws he laid down were divinely inspired in every detail - they were in effect his own interpretation of Jesus's ministry & teachings - just as say St Augustine or St Benedict's were - the difference is that they were writing too late to be included in 'the Scriptures'. Plenty of people have been entirely sincere in their belief that they were divinely guided, but have still used their position of authority in the church to impose their own point of view. And many popes, who, by the rule of Apostolic Succession were just as 'authoritative' as Peter, have used their position at best unwisely and at worst corruptly.

nearlythree · 31/08/2006 22:23

Bloss, we've been here before. I've said before that I've found my journey to where my faith is now very painful. Whenever I had doubts I just used to stick my fingers in my ears and la-la til they went away, until the point came when I was deafened by them. So I've had to confront my doubts, and use my reason, and look at historical evidence and literary styles, and the places where it is apparent that the Gospel writers have added or twisted a bit. It means I've not gained anything (I was always a wishy-washy liberal on things like salvation), but that I have lost - lost my belief in the beautiful birth narratives, in the Easter story (kind of - my mental jury is still out on that one), even my love of the Gospel of John, which I no longer believe to reflect anything of Jesus's real teaching or understanding of who he was. I have discarded a good many of the parts that I love.

You could argue that the whole of Christianity is based on experience of faith rather than fact. I believe that John reflects the understanding of who Jesus was as experienced by the Johannine community. I believe much of Paul's teaching is based on his experience of faith following his (IMO genuine) conversion.

I am upset that you say my experience of faith means nothing to anyone else. I hope it means something to my family, particularly my children, because I am passing it on to them. Dd1 astonishes me with her open-ness about God. My faith also informs the way I live my life - very imperfectly, but I hope that the encounters that I have with others are the better for it and that I witness to my love for Jesus Christ.

I said that the OT law was not always just or compassionate. I stand by that, athough sometimes it was.

It wasn't the teaching of Jesus that women have to be subservient to their husbands. I object to Paul's teaching (if he really wrote it, which is debatable) but he was a fallible man. What astonishes me is that we can't use our reason to see that it can't be right to expect all Christian women to behave like this, or that all Christian men would want it. Core doctrine to whom? Not me.

Tortington · 01/09/2006 01:09

astrophe - what is there to answer?

bloss · 01/09/2006 02:35

Message withdrawn

nearlythree · 01/09/2006 08:56

But Bloss, I my faith does affect others. For a start, our dds would never have heard of God (although I believe they would have felt him). Also there are the reasons why I believe following the teachings of Jesus Christ is the only way to live, and I will testify to those. Finally there is the fact that we only exist because of love, and that the source of love is God. Without love, we are nothing. Without God, we have no love.

It's through reading the testimony of other Christians who have gone through the same doubts as me (e.g. Hilary Wakeman, Marcus Borg, John Spong, John Robinson) that I have been able to make sense of what I believe, even though I don't always agree with them.

I will never convince you I haven't cherry picked parts of the Bible to suit a hypothesis even though I've told you how difficult it has been for me.

Astrophe, you asked ear;ier why anyone would be interested in religion if they didn't believe the Bible to be true. The reason for me is that I place God at the centre of my faith, not the Bible. To place an object (a book) at the centre would be to risk idolatory. And I do believe the Bible to be the most important book ever written.

bloss · 01/09/2006 10:14

Message withdrawn

rustybear · 01/09/2006 10:42

"According to the Bible, Paul was appointed by Jesus himself. The same cannot be said of Saint Benedict, Saint Augustine or any popes. They are quite simply in different categories. Your argument does not hold."
No, Paul was not appointed by Jesus himself, because Jesus was dead by then.If he was appointed by anyone, it was by Peter - the beginning of the Apostolic succession. So when do you stop accepting the 'succession'
By the way I wasn't arguing for the divine authority of various popes, only that they presumably believed they had that authority, and that it was accepted by their society.
My point was that someone in authority may use it to impose their own religious or even social ideal on others and this is quite possibly what Paul did.
In fact, none of this particular argument is actually useful to the OP, who wanted to know how she could be part of an organisation which believes women to be superior to men - which apparently her Church does. Our debating the validity of Bible history probably counts as a hijack - but thanks anyway for an interesting and civilized discussion.

bloss · 01/09/2006 11:05

Message withdrawn

nearlythree · 01/09/2006 11:39

Bloss, experience is what helps me to hang onto my faith when my reason falters, just as you use reason when you have doubts. It isn't the whole of my faith. I reason that Jesus lived and lives, can be experienced now, and that living in his path is the only way to live. Surely you don't think the things that I still believe in are of no worth?

I take your point about some not feeling God's presence, but I have no explanation other than to say it was many years before I knew that what I felt inside was God's spirit. I think many people experience God in so many ways without knowing, such as when someone feels a vocation to aid work or medicine. And it is when you are in a low place that seeing God is often the hardest; I know this is so for me.

Right now my faith is very secure. I might be struggling to be certain about my own doctrinal beliefs, but Jesus is in my life every day and I have had such strength from him as I am coming to terms with the stuff that has been happening lately.

What I think is really sad is the way in which the church is still a barrier between me and my faith. Which kind of brings us back to the OP.

notasheep · 01/09/2006 11:52

I am Catholic and WILL NOT obey.

My sister is Catholic,does exactly what her husband says and is a doormat.

Each to their own

bloss · 01/09/2006 11:59

Message withdrawn

MrsBadger · 01/09/2006 12:26

I've decided to step back from this a bit as I realise that my continuing struggle with my own personal beliefs means I find this debate difficult to participate in without either getting upset or incoherent or coming up against brick walls.

However I would like add my (slightly incoherent) support to nearlythree.
It's not that 'the Bible isn't true' or that 'Paul is an idiot' - the Bible is a huge multipartate work collated over centuries from an oral tradition and tbh it would be jolly surprising if it were all true in every single detail.
I don't think the lack of complete accuracy means one has to discard it all and head for 'Allah... or Krishna... or your inner child... or Gaia... or crystals'.

I wonder if this one way in which we fundamentally differ, in that I firmly believe the Bible isn't true in every single detail but this does not make it worthless, whereas it seems that a central tenet of your faith is that God has made quite sure it is correct in every single little detail and its internal contradictions can all be squared somehow.

And I way in which I know we'll fundamentally differ is that I believe that there are other routes as valid as Christianity by which people may access and experience God (though possibly not via crystals )

texasrose · 01/09/2006 12:34

Hi, just a real quick one as I have a stinking headache!
Just wanted to let nearlythree know that I've ordered 'Jobs for the boys?' from Amazon so I'll let you know what I think of it!

bloss · 01/09/2006 12:43

Message withdrawn

MrsBadger · 01/09/2006 13:01

Ah, but if we had verifiable claims then belief and faith wouldn't be necessray because it would all be incontrovertible Fact.

We do indeed all go our own way, each fumbling in the darkness for Truth. We may each find it, who knows, but who's to say we'll do worse each searching alone than in following any of the men in funny hats who say each they've found the only Truth around and we should all queue patiently for a helping?
Maybe truth we find by ourselves is more valuable than truth handed to us on a plate by someone else.

[bows out gracefully]