>There was a big blowup in the Baptists when the ruling that women were to be something like "graciously submissive" to their husbands.<
The blowup was illogical firstly because the "ruling" was merely a restatement of Biblical command, secondly because it was given by Southern Baptist leadership to Southern Baptist families and only to Southern Baptist families, the women of which are free to disobey the Church just as is anyone else, and thirdly because Christian submission is evidently an entirely different matter than worldly submission. I, as a Christian man, am indeed head of my home, and there is no doubt about it. As head of my home, my role is to do all I can to serve the needs of my wife and children. In effect, as Christ did for the Church, my role is to sacrifice my life for the well being of my family-to willingly give up the right of my life so as to benefit my wife and children. I have done this, and the natural response of my wife has been to graciously submit to my service. She does not lord her role over me, abusing me as I try to serve her. She instead seeks my best interests, knowing that in my whole being I want nothing but her best. I would rather die than lord my role over her, as such a thing would be antithetical to my goal. My wife graciously submits to me naturally, as a woman does when a gentleman hurries to a door to opens it for her, or when a gentleman gives his seat to a woman saying, "Please, madam. Have a seat." The feminist response here is to scowl and say, "Who are you to tell me what to do!!?" The lady, on the other hand, simply will say "Why thank you, sir."
>Bet that went over really big in some homes! If I had been one of those Baptist husbands and had even hinted that things were going to change in my house I'd be looking out in the street for my belongings, and rightfully so.<
. Well. If just by hinting that things were going the change in one's house one's wife would kick one into the streets, then it would appear the tensions in one's home are already much too great to produce any good. Of course, I detect you were here merely using hyperbole, and by no means are you to think my comments here are directed toward you. I say them to make a point. Mainly, that if a man desires to make changes in his home, he ought to have the freedom to approach his wife about his desires so that they can mutually arrive at a method to effect those changes. If a man has not even freedom to hint at the desire for change to his wife, then this is precisely the kind of marriage against which the Southern Baptists have taught.
>The problem is, what is the threat? Did they marry a man that is going to take that literally and put them back into subservience?<
No they did not, and this is not at all the desire of the Southern Baptist leadership. They merely wanted to reaffirm to Southern Baptist families that Southern Baptist men are to love their Southern Baptist wives as Christ loved the Southern Baptist Church (so much so, He died for it), and that Southern Baptist women should not buy into the stupidity of feminism and reject their Southern Baptist men, but graciously submit to their Southern Baptist service.
>Are all men knuckle-dragging buffoons (no wait, don't answer that, yet!) and all women so easily intimidated?<
No to the first, and the second is irrelevant. |
