Glory in store


Enough of this frivolity; back into the theocratic trenches. Back to the anti-feminist “Biblical” reactionaries. It’s time to wade into The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

There is One Woman’s Wrestling Match with Submission, Part IV. Yes, part 4 – we want to be thorough about our wrestling matches with submission (provided, of course, we end up by submitting).

Christ’s purpose and joy was to glorify his Father, and he did this by submitting to him, thus elevating submission and the role of a servant for all time.   The Holy Spirit, for his part, was to glorify Christ.  If God gives me, as a woman, a task, that is the place and position from which he wants me to glorify him.  His intention is that my position of submission to my husband would bring glory to God.  And not only to him – ‘The woman,’ wrote the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 11:7, ‘is the glory of man.’  What if God has glory in store as I joyfully submit to my husband?

Yes but why? Why as a woman? Why not the other way around? Why not alternating – man submits on Tuesday Thursday and Saturday, woman submits on Monday Wednesday and Friday; on Sunday the whole household submits to the cat.

Well no doubt she explained all that in parts 1-3, and I’m just too unsubmissive to go and find out. Very well: your submission to your husband would bring glory to god. If you say so.

Now I am going to play devil’s advocate for a little bit.  What if, after all, the apostles Paul and Peter did not really mean that a wife should submit to her husband?  What if-after all-I have been living under an undue stricture?  What have I lost -my pride?  But is that not what I am supposed to lose?  What about my identity?  But does not the New Testament teach me that my identity is in Christ?  What about possibilities for self-development?  Helping one’s husband obey and rule will lead to plenty of self-development, I’ve noticed, without even looking for it-whether or not it is the sort I had in mind.

No this isn’t working, because there it is again – why is it just the woman who is supposed to lose her pride and find her identity in Christ and get plenty of self-development from helping her spouse?

She doesn’t say; instead she says she did it rong.

I had said I believed in submission – and I came to believe in it more, not less – but I had not been living as a truly submissive wife.  I recognized that I had not been honoring and respecting Trent as my head when it did not fit with my personal ideas.  I had not let him truly lead me when I thought I knew better.  That gets to the crux of the matter, I suppose.  I went to him and asked his forgiveness.  He forgave me.

Yes, that gets to the crux of the matter, and you took the wrong arm of the crux.

So that’s that trench waded into for a moment. Back to light and fresh air now.

Comments

  1. says

    I had not let him truly lead me when I thought I knew better.

    Well, I know that sometimes I know better. And I know that sometimes Mr. Giliell knows better.
    Recognizing each other’s strengths and trusting in them is one of the strongholds of our marriage.
    And it does take a heavy load off our shoulders. We can both lean back on some responsibilities.
    Doesn’t mean there isn’t friction, but I surely don’t have to apologize for having an opinion

  2. says

    “on Sunday the whole household submits to the cat.”

    You might be able to get away with this with an inexperienced kitten, but any half-way competent cat will have the household submitting every day of the week. That is, after all, what the household is for.

    Sorry, this is a serious subject and needs to be treated seriously, but I couldn’t resist a moment of levity.

  3. picool says

    Well, isn’t it nice that Trent “forgave” her of her perceived thoughtcrimes. What an incredibly toxic worldview. I understand that these people are often raised this way and live in fear for their immortal souls and whatnot, but I cannot comprehend the thinking that leads to this. “These urges to assert myself as a fully functioning adult human being with the attendant rights and responsibilities are really the whispers of SATAN!!1!”

    Also, the name Trent sounds like the onomatopoeia of some sort of bodily function (which one is left as an exercise to the reader, but I imagine the script would be something like, “I don’t feel too good” *trent*)

  4. Retired Prodigy Bill says

    There are things in this world that I do not understand, and there is a subset of that set, things that I do not WANT to understand. One of that subset of things is why a man would want a door mat for a wife. I can’t imagine living with a slavish sycophant being anything except alternating between boredom and exasperation.

  5. says

    I don’t have anyone I could call a ‘friend’. Perhaps it’s because the first and only thing I demand is submission: to the rules I make that is. I also like to be praised unconditionally. It does me good, I think. Well, a lot of the praisers think it does. (I can read their thoughts, by the way.)

    Nobody can be undecided about this, and there are only two camps as far as I’m concerned: those who submit and praise, and those who refuse.

    A lot of people think this makes me a weirdo. Psycho even. Some even come right out and say it. But I don’t think that’s true. It’s just that nobody lives up to my expectations.

  6. kraut says

    What about the idea that marriage is a partnership of equals? Did this thought ever occur to those arse-holy Christians?

    That a marriage is not about submission of anybody to anybody, but creating a a family, a life together? Each contributing to the whole with their strength and and thus balancing against each others weaknesses? There is no boss, decisions are made by consent after discussion.

    I have been married to the same wife for fourty years, and we appreciate each other more than ever.

    We don’t need no fucking jesus to control our live or to play role model, we have lived a live successfully together and raised two independent children that can stand on their own two feet.
    What a sick idea of marriage those folks have, it makes me puke to hear that female slave glorifying her slavery as adherence to the will of a god.

  7. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Ian,

    It’s just that nobody lives up to my expectations.

    Well, that makes you pitiable; were I to be bothered by such trivia, I would pity you.

    Notes:

    1. You are a member of the set of people; ‘nobody’ excludes all members of the set of people.

    (The corollary is that you don’t live up to your expectations)

    2. I suggest to you that, if no-one can live up to them, your expectations are unrealistic.

  8. says

    John Morales:

    “Well, that makes you pitiable; were I to be bothered by such trivia, I would pity you.”

    My apologies to you. I was obviously being too subtle in my impersonation of the god of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I did not think it necessary to add the usual ;-)

    Perhaps you would say the same to Him Up There? If so, I would gladly support you.

    http://www.cbmw.org/

  9. sailor1031 says

    I think I’m not getting a couple pieces here:

    “If God gives me, as a woman, a task, that is the place and position from which he wants me to glorify him. His intention is that my position of submission to my husband would bring glory to God….”.

    How does a woman know that the task is from doG? Isn’t it just her husband or the church telling her what to do? What’s doG got to do with it? Did he come on clouds of glory to hand her a note?

    “What if God has glory in store as I joyfully submit to my husband?”

    What if he/she/it/they don’t has glory in store?

    “Yes but why? Why as a woman? Why not the other way around?”

    Yes indeed! Mistress Helga demands submission always, not just alternating days of the week. Always and immediate. Some men like it apparently.

  10. ambulocetacean says

    Christ on a fucking pushbike. None of the women I know would put up with anything resembling this bullshit.

    But the kind of women I know are probably a self-selecting group. The kind of women who do put up with this bullshit are probably at home scrubbing the bathroom grout with their toothbrushes, so I would never get to meet them anyway.

    Do you think we should tell the men in charge of all this repugnant bullshit that their “Council on Biblical Manhood” sounds a little bit … you know … gay?

  11. Aquaria says

    The kind of women who do put up with this bullshit are probably at home scrubbing the bathroom grout with their toothbrushes, so I would never get to meet them anyway.

    Meth addiction is so sad…

  12. says

    Yes, “why” is the ultimate question here. If almighty Dog really meant for women to submit to men, why did it create women with just as much intelligence and willpower as men? What’s the point of having all this intelligence and emotion if we’re not supposed to use it? Seems pretty pointless, and even cruel for a supposedly benevolent being.

  13. Grace says

    This is what my former church has to say on the matter:

    “God established and designed patriarchy as His ideal
    form of government by creating Adam first (Gen 2:20). Had He intended democracy, He could just as easily
    have formed Eve and Adam at the same time and have said, “it is not good that man or woman should be
    alone, I will make them to be helpers comparable to each other.” Had He intended a matriarchy, He would
    have created Eve first then Adam as a suitable helper to her, but this did not happen and God created a
    patriarchy in which the male has authority. God also prepared the man for leadership before giving him the
    woman by having Adam name the living creatures (Gen 2:19-20).”

    “Even the source of the
    woman’s creation symbolizes this leadership- follower creational principle. Woman was created from a rib
    taken from man’s side, which suggests a dependent relationship. Man’s creation involved the endowment of
    leadership; the woman’s creation involved the endowment of support to that leadership. Accordingly, the
    original creation, prior to the fall, provides the basis for the patriarchal system of government, which God
    deemed ‘very good.'”

    This was BEFORE The Fall, mind you.

    “When craftily tempted and deceived in the Garden of Eden, Eve, rather than seeking Adam’s counsel
    and leadership, took the lead herself, eating of the forbidden fruit and then leading her husband into sin (Gen
    3:6). The whole creation, through Eve’s lead, became corrupt, though the structure and inherent principles of
    the creation remained intact.
    Part of the Divine pronouncement of judgment for Eve (and thus for
    all women) was a tension in the authority-submission relationship with man, “Your desire shall be for your
    husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16). The same word “desire” is used by God to mean “excessive
    control over” à “sin lies at the door and its desire is for you, but you should rule over it” (Gen 4:7).
    Thus, the words of God to Eve refer to a new desire on the part of woman to exercise control over man, but he will
    in fact rule or exert authority over her. The result down through history has been an ongoing struggle
    between the sexes with women seeking control and men ruling instead, often harshly.”

    It all makes perfect sense.
    .

  14. says

    Grace:

    You seem to be something of a theological authority round here,

    I have been seeking for some time a non-vague and specific answer to the following question:

    What exactly was done by Eve in the original sin? Eating a ‘forbidden fruit’ can only be a metaphor for something far more serious, but no website or authority I have consulted can provide anything more than vague generalities about ‘disobedience’.

    Considering that the consequences of that munch on the apple (or whatever it was) have been all the wars, death, disease, pestilence and disaster subsequent to and consequent upon ‘The Fall’, one would think it was both serious and specific.

    Any ideas?

    BTW, one authority holds that God was irate about the bite out of the apple because it was a special one that he was saving for jam (apple jelly?) But I have not found any confirmation of this.

    ;-)

  15. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Ian MacDougall, Ophelia, Poe’s Law in action.

    I did not think it necessary to add the usual ;-)

    You didn’t reckon with my obtuseness.

    (No harm done)

  16. Jeremy Shaffer says

    I love her attmpt at playing devil’s advocate. Apparently to her it doesn’t really matter if the bible has been misinterpreted or if the concept really appears there because, in her mind, the results should be desired anyway. In the end she seems to be claiming some sort of biblical authority as a supportive basis while pointing out that it doesn’t matter if she actually has it or not.

    Ian at 18- I know the question was directed to Grace but judging from the talks on that subject I’ve had it seems that disobedience, as vague and general a charge it may be, is grave enough of a transgression to be the original sin. What action or form this disobedience would have taken is simply extraneous.

  17. says

    Jeremy @ 21:

    “…judging from the talks on that subject I’ve had it seems that disobedience, as vague and general a charge it may be, is grave enough of a transgression to be the original sin. What action or form this disobedience would have taken is simply extraneous.”

    Be that as it may. The philosophical difficulty the religions encounter is that they also claim to be about justice, and in Christianity God’s justice takes the form of Christ’s sacrifice to redeem the world from its sin. (This is a real tar baby of an idea if you ask me.)

    The notional consequences for the world and humanity of that original sin have been enormous: war, plague, devastation, volcanic eruptions, floods, fires, earthquakes… you name it. God chose the course of expulsion from Eden, where he could have just administered a slap on the wrist to Eve, told her she was a naughty girl, and made her promise not to do it again.

    After all, eating the forbidden fruit was the only way to sin in those days. But as a result of that act, the kinds of sins themselves bred like rabbits. There’s a helluva lot more variety around today.

    Conclusion: God’s notion of justice lacks any sense (whatever) of proportion.

  18. Grace says

    @Ian MacDougall

    I grew up in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and we were actually encouraged to ask questions. I had a lot of them and felt comfortable enough to ask. When my older brother decided to convert to Mormonism, we had these old priests with the big hats coming to our house all the time to have theological debates with my him, trying to talk him out of joining what they saw as a cult. So religion became an even bigger deal in my household. They brought books and books in English for me and my siblings to read so we wouldn’t fall down the same path as our brother. I love to read so I devoured them, something I really regret now. I think I know too much about all this stuff, and it definitley wasn’t healthy for a teenager, in my opinion. I became a really serious kid, way too serious.

    The Serpent told Eve that if she and Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which God forbade them to do, their eyes would be opened and they would become like gods themselves. So it was disobedience but also trying to gain independent knowledge. I’ve always thought this part was strange…after God finds out what they did, he says: ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever,’ Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden. It seems like God didn’t want any competition. (The “one of us” part is used by Mormons to prove their theology that there is more than one God. My brother would use this quote all the time.)

    God also punished the serpent. He orignally had arms and legs, apparently. ‘Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”
    And snakes were created!

  19. says

    Grace @ 23:

    An interesting bit of biographical detail. From Eastern Orthodox to Mormonism is a pretty fair jump.

    You slant on original sin strikes me that God feared his creation was getting out of control: a sort of Frankenstein’s monster. So he shut down the Eden experiment there and then. But knowing the difference between good and evil – having a moral sense if you will – does not make one omnipotent, omniscient or anything like a rival in terms of power to God.

    It would seem that God not only lacked a sense of humour, but a sense of proportion as well.

    Where I live here in NW NSW, Australia, there are snakes galore at this time of the year. Well, at least I know now why we’ve got ‘em.

    ;-)

  20. Grace says

    God was afraid that they would also eat from the Tree of Life, which would have made them immortal. I’m not sure if omnipotence and omniscience would be included in that.

    Did you mean fair or far about Mormonism? I know Christianity is wacky, but Mormonism really takes the cake. And the whole dom/sub relationship is also important in Mormon marriages. I live in Utah and I get approached by Mormon missionaries all the time. Not just at home, I’ve been approached in grocery store parking lots and going for walks. I don’t get it, I don’t know how they know I’m not LDS. Maybe I give off a heathen vibe or something. That or I’m being stalked.

  21. says

    Omniscience is all-knowing, which means that there is absolutely nothing an omniscient being cannot know. Omnipotent is all-powerful, so an omnipotent being can do anything. That in turn means that if there are TWO omnipotent and omniscient gods, one could do away with the other. But then, the one about to be done in would know what was going to happen, and being omnipotent, would be able to stop it. But the first god would have anticipated that, and so on to infinity.

    Hence the OT God understandably favoured monotheism. ;-)

    If one is immortal one cannot be killed. By anything. But that does not necessarily mean one must therefore be omnipotent.

    With regard to Mormonism, I meant that from Orthodox to Mormon is a big leap, which I think it is.

    Joseph (?) Smith’s meeting with the angel or whoever is no less credible than Moses’ encounter with God on MT Sinai, but Mormonism strikes me as pretty wacky. There’s no shortage of snake oil salesmen around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>