Women Shall Submit

[Saheli]

The Apostle Paul in the Christian Bible was rather adamant about women submitting to their husbands, and being under the headship of their fathers before they marry.

I think that Paul took the theories behind the relationship dynamic to a much more sexist level than was necessary or even intended. Here is why I think this. Paul discusses how women should be silent in church. He even says that if a woman has a question, she shouldn't even ASK there. Instead, she is to wait until she is at home with her husband and then ask him. I don't believe that God and Paul share this same thought. There are many examples of women leaders throughout the Bible...women leading communities, churches, the first Minister of Music was a woman (Miriam...Moses' sister), and one of the Judges was a woman--Deborah, I think. Obviously it isn't such a big deal to God. Why is it to Paul? Well, first of all, we have to remember that Paul was Saul before he changed his name. And Saul was very highly esteemed in his Jewish community. He was one of the Pharisees; he knew the law perfectly...he was in charge, and he had a lot of status/power. Couple this with the culture of that time, which basically said women were property, and it isn't too hard to figure out that Paul (though he had some good ideas and understood many things very well) missed the boat on this one. So the fact that God puts women in positions of power in church while Paul says women shouldn't speak in church tells me that Paul was just wrong. Good intentions, but wrong.

In addition to the wife's complete submission to the spiritual head of the home, he is also to love her "as Christ loves the Church" (church being body of believers in Jesus as the Messiah)

It is true that the church believes Jesus is the Messiah, but when the Bible says that "he should love her as Christ loves the church," that isn't what it means. The Bible says on multiple occasions that there is only one God, that a man cannot serve two masters (which in my opinion refers to the two masters being on the same level; it is possible to have two masters, as long as one master is the ultimate master and above the lesser master). So when it says "as Christ loves the church," it means unconditionally and even to death. Christ died for the church even when He didn't do anything wrong. He suffered out of love. That's what it means. A wife is not supposed to worship her husband--this is not a command for her but for him. He is to love her so much that even if she's wrong he will take the fall for her out of love...it means there should be no limit to the sacrifices he will make for her good.

I am wondering if this is comparible to the BDSM lifestyle. Do you see it that way? Or do you see that not all women are being commanded to be submissives? That women in this role are choosing it and therefore it is totally other?

I believe it is. But I don't believe women are commanded to be submissives per se. My belief is gray: Women should be submissive to their husbands in the sense that they should have respect for them. To me, it is no different than the respect husbands should have for their wives; the difference is in the way the respect is shown. I think the main point here isn't WHO is submissive but just that you can't have a peaceful home if everybody wants to be the boss. I think that instead of explaining in detail how it doesn't really matter which person in the couple prefers to be Dominant and which prefers to be submissive, it was just easier to say women should submit. But then again, I don't know if there would have been riots if it were worded in any other way...because back then, women had no rights at all. Submitting wasn't really a choice like it is now. And really, (some people will disagree) God isn't that petty. Honestly, do you think that He's spending time brooding over which one of you is Dominant and which one is submissive? He doesn't care. I really believe it's just not that big of a deal. I think that all of these guidelines were written the way they were because
1)They reflected the culture of that time and
2)The goal is the big picture--peace in the home.

Could you imagine if you lived back then, and you decided you wanted to be the Dominant while your husband would be submissive? I think it's a safe bet that a statement like that would not exactly foster tranquility in your house.

Bottom Line: The Bible clearly states that both people in a couple are to respect and honor one another. It instructs men to not be harsh (because they have a tendency to be) and women to call their husbands 'Lord' (or Master, because it is a sign of respect). So, as long as love is present on both sides. It doesn't matter which person is playing which role. Just because you're a woman doesn't necessarily mean you're stuck in the 'wife' role and vice versa. If God is so petty that it TRULY bothers Him whether or not it's me or my husband who is the Dominant one in the relationship, then I guess I would probably need to re-evaluate the validity of God's promise that "I know the plans I have for you...plans to prosper you and not to harm you..." Really? So if I'm female and I want to be the Dominant, and if God made me and created me to have a natural urge to Dominate, then the only way that would NOT harm me is if God has no problem with me being a Dominant.