by AGuest 60 Replies latest watchtower bible
All Christians are to live under and submit to authority.
Regardless of gender, all are to submit to government and authorities insofar as that submission does not counter higher authority (God).
The scripture calls for mutual submission of husband and wife. When this breaks down, marital failure is inevitable.
All Christians are to live under and submit to authority.
Yes, but that isn't exactly what this thread was meant to be about, dear V7 (peace to you, dear one!). Rather, it was an inquiry into the basis of women submitting/being in subjection to men... who are not their husbands: the basis for that "authority" (as taught by the WTBTS).
Regardless of gender, all are to submit to government and authorities insofar as that submission does not counter higher authority (God).
Understood. Everyone pretty much has to submit to the superior authorities that are their relevant governments, penal systems, legislature, etc.... or risk consequences, yes. This isn't as much about submission in general, though, but about the "authority" the WTBTS cites to say that women are in subjection to men, in general. Even, as dear Bobcat pointed out... grown women to their minor sons simply because the latter has undergone baptism. Unfortunately, you may have misread/misunderstood MY position... and point. Certainly others here have.
The scripture calls for mutual submission of husband and wife. When this breaks down, marital failure is inevitable.
No argument from me on that. But again, what I'm trying to get to is under what "authority" is a woman to submit to a man who is NOT her husband... as taught by the WTBTS. I raised this issue because I know there is no basis for it... other than custom/tradition/culture. However, SOME believe it is based on scripture/the Bible (because that's how the WTBTS presents it) and I wanted those who (although having left the WTBTS or contemplating doing so) might still believe that there is some scriptural/biblical basis for that to THINK... and ask themselves whether there truly IS.
And so, rather than just say there is NOT, I am asking those who DO believe it to be valid based on scripture/the Bible... to share with me the basis THEY believe exists to justify it. I am doing that to perhaps encourage them to look it up for themselves and SEE that there isn't. You know, one can be shown better than one can be told. And again, not trying to undermine anyone's marital relationship, not at all. This was even about submission in the husband/wife relationship but as to men and women who are NOT married.
But you are correct: we are all in submission/subjection to something, no doubt. I just wanted folks to contemplate whether it's what they have been led to BELIEVE it is... or, on the other side (as to men), whether such RIGHT (to have women in subjection) is based on what they might think it is... or is just the product custom/culture/and tradition... used to foment more mind control.
Again, thank you for your comment... and peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
Peace to you Aguest. Regardless of Gender, we are to submit to those in authority over us.
Here in Canada, we have had a female Prime Minister who males and females rightly submitted to.
As men were never given authority over women, God has not called women to submit to men.
God has called husbands and wives to submit to each other.
Greetings, dear V7, and again, peace to you!
As men were never given authority over women, God has not called women to submit to men.
Yes! I agree! Hopefully, some (women AND men, here) who might still believe He HAS will get this truth, as well.
God has called husbands and wives to submit to each other.
Again, yes, I understand what you mean and agree!
Thank you and again peace to you!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
shelby i must tell you about an experience i had recently with the elders of my congregation.
you know I have a sick friend and both my husband and myself have been totally flat out supportive with our time and energies. AT the same time a pipe had burst in our home and my husband was trying valiantly to fix it over the weekend. An elder from another congregation had been ringing repeatedly during the week to speak to my husband and i had been taking the call as my husband wa either at work or at the meeting or we were helping my friend - all of this I patiently conveyed to this persistent elder. After all this he also rang saturday morning whilst my husband was on the ministry. Well he finally also rang sunday evening when my husband was working on the burst pipe.
I took the call again but this time I told him very firmly to ring one of the other elders or better yet deal with the situation himself with his own elder body. He did not like this and told me he was shocked. So I told him twice to grow up and put the phone down on him.
My husband is a very kind man and knows that i am under pressure so he texted our PO to deal with it. AT the next meeting all of the elder body very pointedly refused to speak to me, they would not even meet my gaze but were very friendly towards my husband while I was standing right next to him. Generally they smile and say hello (their wives continued to be friendly except the PO's wife - she kept looking round at us during the meeting). Usually I answer up at the meetings when I attend - this time my hand was not taken even when I was the only one who had raised her hand.
In the distant past this sort of behaviour would have had its coersive customary effect on me. But now it just makes me smile inwardly and I will simply carry on as if nothing has happened, in time the elders will get over it just as I expect them to and just as they have done in the past, customarily that is. My husband did not think I had done anything wrong and indeed he had been trying to avoid speaking to this elder as he did not want to get involved and was going to tactfully say so anyway.
You may be wondering what the point of my sharing my experience is - well my conclusion is that custom can work against one and it can work for one when dealing with authoritative use of force to bend others to one's will as the WTS teaches its elders. i am a great fan of Pascal. edit: he said "Custom is our nature. What are our natural principles but principles of custom?"
We are of necessity a hierarchical society. There are times when people must lead according to their capabilities or the legal framework of society. The majority of history has required men to be physically stronger for combat and hunting purposes and women to be physically stronger for health and child rearing purposes. This naturally led to a situation where alpha males led and more often than not women were lower down the power scale. You can see this in nature with such simple examples as afforded by great apes. If society was forced back into some uncivilised state due to catastrophe then men who could fight would naturally be sought out and people would follow. Rarely but not insignificantly when a true women warrior emerges ( an extreme outlier) then she assumes the dominant role in the absence of a superior competitor.
Society has progressed far enough to no longer rely upon brute strength to enforce will. Where religion , amongst other historical institutions, has been a problem is in the social drag they produce which makes changing attitudes more difficult. Women's rise to a position of equality was available to society centuries earlier than it happened because of these slow evolving institutions of which the bible is a chief culprit ( but also law, education and political structure are significant players.) The largest player however, and the most effective agent of social change is simply economics. Women's long needed rise to equality is only possible insomuch as they have access to their own economic determinence. Thus wealthy women in history are much more equal to the men around them.
The bible and other religious texts were written by a different age and a time when women were disempowered. In that age power was wielded by the sword and people had so little factual information that they were impressed by fairytales and magic. That they are still used as the basis of social interaction or as handbooks about 'truth' and reality is a scourge on society and many people still enslave themselves to imaginary beings, more often than not, mythical males which is a tragedy IMO.
The scripture calls for mutual submission of husband and wife. - Vanderhoven
This is a modern spin on an inconvenient fact. The bible is unequivocal that wives are to subject themselves to their husbands. Never does it even remotely suggest the contrary. Women are possessions of their men in the OT and only slightly more empowered in the NT for reasons Qcmbr has explained above.
Nobody really gets their morality from the bible they get it from elsewhere and then read it back into the source they pretend to honour.
Here's a gem from the Jeremiah book that the witnesses are studying now. I stumbled over it by chance the other day and thought the ladies on here might appreciate it. Taken from page 75 - 'As a housewife scrubs even the hidden corners of her kitchen to keep her home clean and sanitary, a repentant person should work hard to clean up his thoughts' Wow. Notice not just someone or a cleaner or a home carer but specifically a housewife. What a privilege women have in God's organization. And if you housewives keep the hidden corners really sanitary, you don't even have to wear a head covering! But remember to change out of your work uniform into your pretty dress for family worship evening.
<<The bible is unequivocal that wives are to subject themselves to their husbands. Never does it even remotely suggest the contrary>>
Not true.
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she respect her husband.
There is no conflict between verse 21 and verse 33. In fact verse 33 merely sums up verses 22-32 and clarifies what that submission looks like in terms of gender role. Being called to nourish/take care of your wife's every need is servanthood and submission of the highest order.
"Perhaps to guard against abuses of authority and wrong notions of submission, it’s important to note what submission does not mean. Piper and Grudem note concerning what submission does not mean (“Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism” ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem). Their list is based on a New Testament text that curiously holds up Sarah as a paradigm of submission (see: I Peter 3:1-6).
Submission does not mean putting a husband in the place of Christ.
Submission does not mean giving up independent thought.
Submission does not mean a wife should give up efforts to influence and guide her husband.
Submission does not mean a wife should give in to every demand of her husband.
Submission is not based on lesser intelligence or competence.
Submission does not mean being fearful or timid.
Submission is not inconsistent with equality in Christ"
