Wives' submission to husbands

[Guest]

Steve,

I keep thinking about this idea of a wife's total submission to her husband, based on scriptures that you say support that idea - And doesn't the Bible say that a husband is supposed to love his wife as Christ loves the church?

It seems to me that Christ never demands that we do anything - He gives us the ability and the CHOICE to either obey Him or not. He seems to gradually get us to WANT to do His will because he loves us so much, and also because we come to realize that He definitely knows what's best for us. But it's our choice.

I don't think I could ever live with a man who insisted on my complete submission to him - and I don't believe that that's what we're meant to do. I think that both husband and wife are supposed to submit to each other - I do believe that a husband is supposed to be the spiritual leader in the home, but I believe that a wife has the freedom to make her choices in life - She answers to the Lord when she dies, not her husband.

[_Steve]

I realize that the biblical teaching of the wife's submission to her husband is a difficult pill for modern women to swallow, and probably was never very easy for women in the old days either.

It is not a matter of anyone forcing submission on anyone else. As you said, Christ doesn't force us to obey. There are, of course, ultimate consequences that we incur if we disobey Christ, but He allows us to choose them rather than to obey, if we wish. As Christians, however, we have agreed that Jesus is our Lord, and that we are obliged to obey His commands. We may disobey, but it is sinful to do so.

When a wife is instructed to submit to her husband, as unto the Lord (Eph.5:22-24/ Col.3:18), there is no suggestion that the husband should force her to submit to him. He should not need to do so, nor can he do so. Her desire to obey Christ is what motivates her to submit to her husband, out of obedience to Christ.

There are times when Christian men and Christian women must not obey the commands of people whom it is otherwise their duty to obey. This is when the one in authority gives a command requiring the other to sin against God. No one has to submit to such commands as that.

You mention that God gives us the CHOICE to obey or not. But this is not the same thing as God saying that disobedience is an acceptable choice. When it comes to the marriage relationship, we can exercise our God-given choice of whether to marry or not. However, we have not been not given the authority to re-define marriage into something different from what God made it. As we, while single, stand outside of marriage looking in, we see an institution established by God for a certain purpose, and having specific functions of the participants. The husband is required to love his wife as Christ loves the church, and the wife is to submit to her husband as unto Christ. These are not easy assignments, but they are essential to the purpose of God that marriage should depict Christ and the church as its most-important function. As we look into marriage and see what these gender functions inside the institution would cost us, we may decide that we do not want to go inside, where these new responsibilities will accrue to us. That is our choice. But if we choose to go in there, it should not be with the assumption that we will alter the very nature of the institution.

Every husband should be like Christ, who, as you said, "seems to gradually get us to WANT to do His will because he loves us so much." Many husbands find this as difficult as the wives find their role of submission. The husband naturally finds it easier to focus on the wife's need to submit, and the wife naturally finds it easier to focus on the husband's need to lay down his life for her, as Christ did. This is simply a symptom of our human tendency to be more concerned that others do their duty than that we do our own. Obviously, if the husband fails in his duty, the wife will not be faulted by God for his failure. She will only be held responsible for that which was her assignment.

It is harder for a woman to submit to a man whom she does not perceive as one who lays down his own life and preferences for her. I always counsel husbands that they should not complain about their wife's unsubmissiveness if they (the husbands) are not demonstrating to their wife, by their own sacrificial love, that she can safely submit to him, and not defend her own interests, because he will defend her interests with his life.

On the other hand, when talking to the complaining wife, I inform her that the husband more naturally wants to love, cherish and protect his wife and her interests when he does not see her as his adversary in the home, always challenging his every decision and implying a lack of trust in his judgment and leadership. When a man sees that his wife is making herself vulnerable to hardship by submitting willingly to her husband, he is far more inclined to want to move heaven and earth, and to lay down his own life, if necessary, in order to protect the interests of the one who has thus made herself vulnerable to his leadership.

Not every woman will respond to her husband's sacrificial love in the manner that I described above, and some husbands will not respond to the wife's submission as I just described a man doing—but anyone with a modicum of Christianity in them will do so. There are evil, or severely damaged, men and women who will simply take advantage of every inch their partners give them, and who will abuse the precious gift the other is offering—but no husband or wife should assume that their mate is this barabaric until they have attempted to win them by their own compliance with the responsibilities of their respective roles.

For those of us who know the agony of being stuck with the exceptional self-absorbed, abusive spouse, who does not seem capable of responding to love in the normal manner described above, there is that universal duty laid upon the Christian to bear all things out of love for Christ (1 Cor.13:7). It is a sad thing when our spouses are our persecutors, but as we are told to do good to those who persecute us (Matt.5:44), our duty remains clear even in such cases.

I do not imagine your marriage to have quite such severe difficulties as I have just mentioned, but I am taking a worst-case scenario for the purpose of showing that our duty to love, submit, etc. is not contingent upon anyone else's (even our spouse's) conduct. First Peter 3:1-2 speaks directly to this point.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, some marriages are held together by committment
and obligation because of the LOVE for the LORD. Wanting to please HIM in ALL aspects is a main concern. Sad though because IF a man would
love the woman as CHRIST the church (most) women unless being an unbeliever will respond if she feels listened to and cared for. In return
it would be natural to respect him and meet HIS needs. The responsibility
lies on both men and women. If the man confesses to being a christian
but has NO fruits in his life then it would be right for the woman to pray
as though he was an unbeliever and being in silence.

[Guest]

If I speak with the authority of the head of the house,
but do not have love,
I am just blowing off steam.
If I claim to know the mysteries of marriage
and to have knowledge of gender distinctions,
but do not have love,
I am just an arrogant theorist.
If I provide enough money for my wife's every whim
and sacrifice myself on the altar of marital success,
but do not have love,
I am just another bankrupt marital casualty.

A husband's love is patient when she is never ready on time,
Kind even when she is in "one of her moods,"
And not jealous of her social skills and friends.

A loving husband is not arrogant of his logical abilities
and the fact that he is usually right.
He treats his wife like a "lady,"
with thoughtfulness and tenderness,
And does not selfishly pursue his own interests and hobbies
to the exclusion of her interests.

A loving husband is not provoked when she does not think or act as he expects,
and does not keep a list of all the times when she has hurt or wronged him.

The love of a husband bears all the misunderstandings,
Believes that God is sufficient to make the marriage work,
Hopes that the relationship will glorify God,
and endures all the inevitable difficulties.

If there be marriage seminars, they will be forgotten.
If there are libraries of books on marriage, they will be destroyed.
If there are theories of gender distinctions and marital roles, they will fade away.

There now abides in the Christian husband,
Faith that God knew what He was doing when He created us male and female,
and the hope that their marriage union
will represent the union of Christ and the Christian as God intended.
But the greatest is love which allows us to seek the highest good of the other
without selfishly considering what we get out of it.

[Guest]

Made my day!
I will have my husband read it!
AMEN
TRUE

Live with her in an understanding way goes a long way!

[Guest]

Submission is for husbands too
We must stop attempting to try and make “the curse” in the garden work.
Which is husband lording over the wife. We are free from that now to support, value, love and submit one to another. Male supremacy is the curse.
Every Blessing
John

[_Steve]

Isn't it a shame that the role of the wife's submission to her husband, which God ordained for her security, is today viewed as part of a "curse" on the woman? The near-total conquest of the spirit of this age over the church is seen few places clearer than here. Throughout history, godly women have gloried in their subordinate role under godly husbands, realizing that God ordained this (as is absolutely unmistakable in scripture) as the means of guarding them from spiritual danger, such as that into which Eve fell through deception.

How has this advantage come to be regarded as a curse? Are we to think children are "cursed" by the command to obey their parents? Is it oppressive to sheep that they have a shepherd? Is the church under a curse because she is commanded to submit to Christ? This last analogy is the one the scriptures use to inform their teaching about husband and wife roles.

We live in an exceedingly rebellious age. The same generation of Christians that has decided that they know better than Peter, Paul (and God) about the nature of wive's submission is that generation of Christians that has no concept (or rebels at the concept) of the total Lordship of Christ, and knows nothing of discipleship, servanthood or death to self.

It takes courage for a godly man or woman to stand today and affirm what the Word of God affirms on this topic. Most preachers avoid it or compromise it. It is simply unacceptable to modern Western culture—and most Christians are more devoted to the darkness of that culture than to the light of scripture.

No marvel that even Christian marriages do not seem to be able to figure out how to stay together! We have made ourselves "wise above what is written," rejected God's instructions, and recreated a thoroughly-American, democratic, egalitarian institution to suit our cultural conditioning—and called it by the same name as God's sacred institution of marriage. Then we wonder why homosexuals feel that they should be allowed the dignity of "marital" status. While we've gone about remaking marriage according to our tastes, why stop at the heterosexual barrier? Doing so is entirely arbitrary, once we have decided that marital roles are no longer defined by God, but by societal consensus and sentiment.

It is interesting how a single verse "submitting to one another in the fear of God" (Eph.5:21), has been employed to abolish everything that the context immediately following it teaches. As soon as Paul gives this exhortation, he launches into three paragraphs of the most non-egalitarian material to be found anywhere in scripture: wives submit to husbands; children obey your parents; slaves be obedient to your masters. One might reasonably assume that these separate instructions to different groups of Christians are intended to expound and "unpack" the summary statement, "submitting...to one another."

Obviously, Paul also puts equally stringent requirements upon the parties who are in authority—husbands, fathers, masters, though he never tells a father to submit to his children, or a master to submit to his slave—nor a husband to submit to his wife. He places more far-reaching demands upon the authority figure—"love...as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." We never find any duty incumbent upon Christ to submit to His church (though the Word-of-Faith-types seem to presume that He is supposed to do so). Instead, Christ gives His life for His church. He empties Himself and takes the form of a servant—but all the while, He is still the undisputed Master and Lord.

Yet the church is not the worse-off for having a Lord, any more than a body is disadvantaged by having a head. There are certainly times when my head "keeps my body under" so as to prevent it from sinning. At such times, the part of my body that wishes to sin may resent the intrusive guidance of the head that restricts it, but the body is still better-off having a head than it would be without one. A head is a blessing of God, not a curse, given to the body.

Of course, from the standpoint of the body's preferences, it might prefer an arrangement where the head provided all the services that a head provides for a body, but without the element of authority. But God designed the body as He thought best, and never required the head to "submit" to the body (there is, nonetheless, a power struggle between the head and the body, described by Paul in Romans 7:14ff, which results in a "wretched" state of frustration).

Obviously, because the head and body are one organism, the head has a compelling interest in the welfare and happiness of the body. The head loves its body, and will, in every case "nourish and cherish" it (Eph.5:29). This is the analogy that scripture employs in speaking of the husband and the wife.

In Genesis 3, the submission of the wife to the husband is not said to be a curse. It was not even a new requirement after the fall. The woman was originally made to be a "helper" to the man. What was added after the fall was the element of the woman's innate desire to overthrow the authority of the husband. This is the meaning of the Hebraism, "Your desire shall be to your husband" (comp. Gen.3:16 w/ 4:7). This new inward drive to rule her husband—not her subordinate role under him—was what constituted the "curse." When God made marriage, before the fall, He intended it to reflect the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph.5:31-32). This never could have lacked the element of submission, which is central to the church's discipleship under Christ.

A woman who has witnessed the oppression of an ungodly husband could think this to be a curse, but God calls that situation an opportunity (1 Pet.3:1-2). I pity the woman who has an uncaring and ungodly husband, just as I pity anyone in a relationship with an uncaring or ungodly party. This would include children with uncaring parents and parents with ungrateful children; servants with unsympathetic masters, as well as masters with unconscientious servants; students with harsh teachers, and teachers with rude students. This also includes husbands with evil and abusive wives (a situation of which I have very intimate knowledge).

The point is, relationships with sinful and selfish people can be extremely trying. That is why we call these situations trials. Trials are not God's "curse" upon the saints, they are designed to test our faith and commitment, as well as providing opportunities for growth, submission to the will of God, and service in the image of Christ—who also had a few trials of His own, we mustn't forget.

Wives are not the only demographic group that God has placed under various authorities. Children, husbands, employers, students, citizens, church members—in short every human being—has been placed under obligation to find his/her fulfillment and fruitfulness in submission to some other parties. Unlike many of these, the wife at least has the advantage of choosing the man with whom she will live in such a relationship, and, normally, will only be in a position to submit to a man who loves her (why else would he marry her?) and who has her best interests at heart.

Any given day you may observe the astonishing phenomenon of a Christian woman who, for the sake of money, submits without complaint, in every detail to her boss at work (who may care nothing about her well-being, has sacrificed nothing for her, and has no life-long commitment to her). Then that same woman goes home and balks at her biblical duty to submit to the husband, who loves her, has forsaken all others for her, and is committed only to her happiness, security and welfare! Such is the new enlightened woman of the feminist mold! If a wife gives to her boss, for the sake of remuneration, what she will not give her husband out of love and loyalty, is this different in principle from prostitution?

"Submission" is almost universally regarded as a bad word today, and modern preachers rarely venture to use it in their preaching, lest they lose their pulpits. In this avoidance, they must neglect a large number of passages in the Bible, and thus deprive their flocks of access to the whole counsel of God. When the proper roles of husband and wife have been dispensed with, our culture will then go after (and indeed already is doing so) the abolition of biblical parent-child relationships. So long as one person's rightful subordination to another, in any context, can be misconstrued as oppression or exploitation, there is nothing to prevent us even from declaring that the church and Christ must have an egalitarian relationship! Once this stone has been laid, the Gospel itself has nothing left to say to humanity.

God's will for us is for our good always. Since He has ordained certain roles of submission to various authorities, submission cannot be a bad word in His reckoning, nor should it be in ours. Godly women with godly husbands find in it a place of security and freedom within their proper sphere. At least this is what they have told me, and I find it true in my relationship with Christ. Submission is the place of joy, clearness of conscience, and security. This is the privilege that God wishes for us all, but what few modern women, damaged by feminist upbringing, have ever really known in their marriages, because even the church has told them that they must not surrender their rights in marriage. The devil tells us the same thing when we contemplate discipleship. But he is not a reliable witness.

[Guest]

Thank you Steve for your recent reply.
If both are committed to the LORD and followed HIS instructions carefully
the problems would not be present. Both would be more mindful of the others needs..............................I realize that even if one person is doing that to the very best they can, the other may not want to stay in that marriage....

God Bless

[Guest]

MARRIAGE

I. Some Biblical references to marriage

Gen. 1:27 - "male and female created He them"
Gen. 2:18 - "I will make a helper suitable for him"
Gen. 2:24 - "a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they
shall become one flesh"
Prov. 31:10-31 - "An excellent wife, who can find? Her worth is far above jewels."
Song of Solomon - (God's marriage manual)
Mal. 2:14 - "she is your companion and your wife by covenant"
Mal. 2:16 - "I hate divorce," says the Lord."
Matt. 19:3-12 - "What God has joined together, let no man separate."
I Cor. 7:1-40 - "Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband."
I Cor. 11:3 - "the man is the head of a woman" this means source (eg head of a river). the source of love, not position of power
Eph. 5:21-33 - "Wives be subject to your husbands...Husbands, love your wives.."
I Pet. 3:1-7 - "wives, be submissive...husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,
as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman"

II. General foundations of marriage

A. God created mankind, and divided humanity into two sexes, male and female (Gen. 1:27)
B. The woman was intended to be the complement to the man (Gen. 2:18)
C. Marriage is a relational union of one male and one female joined as husband and wife.
D. Marriage is a union of two persons in a unit of one marriage (Gen. 2:24)
E. Marriage is a covenantally agreed arrangement of functional oneness (Mal. 2:14)
F. Marriage is a symbiotic relationship (mutually beneficial relationship of life); not just a
relationship of authoritarian position.
G. Male and female (husband and wife) are spiritually equal before God. (Gal. 3:28)
H. Male and female genders seem to have been created with distinctive differences, physically
and psychologically.
I. Marriage requires an attitude of completion, rather than competition.
J. The marriage relationship requires mutual deference one to another (Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:13)
III. Differing perspectives of marriage

A. Religious legalism
1. "Follow the rules of role responsibility, and it will work out right."
2. Authoritarianism, absolutism
3. Self-effort, performance; "Do it"
4. Over-emphasis of "Husband is head" (I Cor. 11:3); "Wife submit" (I Pet. 3:1)
B. Cultural egalitarianism
1. "Develop your inherent personhood, and things will fall into place"
2. Self-actualization and realization
3. Self-development, potential; "Feel it"
4. Over-emphasis of "male and female equal" (Gal. 3:28)
C. Christocentric lordship
1. "Allow Jesus Christ to manifest His character in a loving relationship"
2. Awareness of Christ's activity in husband and wife.
3. Self-denial; "Be available to the life of Jesus Christ"
4. Recognition of mutuality of love, deference, self-giving (Eph. 5:21)
IV. The relational function of the husband in marriage.

A. Source
1. Jesus Christ is the dynamic source of the husband's function.
2. Model of such is Christ's relation to the Church - Eph. 5:25-33
B. Expression
1. Initiation of self-giving love that seeks highest good of the other. (Eph. 5:25; Col. 3:19)
2. Love of God (I Jn. 4:8,16; Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5:22,23) that provides:
a. direction, purpose, meaning in relationship
b. tenderness, cherishing, sensitivity, emotional oneness
c. understanding (I Pet. 3:7), relational bonding, involvement
d. strength, stability, consistency, faithfulness, fairness
e. provision, protection, care for
f. assurance of being 'special' (I Pet. 3:7), honored, desired, prized, enjoyed, delighted in,
praised (Prov. 31:28)
g. acceptance and affirmation as a meaningful person

V. The relational function of the wife in marriage.
A. Source
1. Jesus Christ is the dynamic source of the wife's function.
2. Model of such is Christ's relation to the Father -Jn. 10:30; Phil. 2:6,7
B. Expression
1. Response of self-giving love that seeks highest good of the other.
2. Love of God (I Jn. 4:8,16); Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5:22,23) that provides:
a. encouragement, support, complementation (Gen. 2:18)
b. respect (Eph. 5:33), admiration, appreciation
c. receptivity, availability, adaptability
d. invitation, excitement, desirability (SoS 1:2,4; 2:5)
e. faithfulness, nurturing, kindness (Prov. 31:26)
f. gentle, quiet spirit (I Pet. 3:4), transparency
g. acceptance and affirmation as a meaningful person

VI. Relational dysfunction in marriage.

A. Common explanations and excuses
1. Failure to abide by role regulations
2. Psychological incompatibility
3. Cultural differences
4. Gender differences
B. Real reason for relational dysfunction in marriage
1. Selfishness
2. Character other than character of God
C. Divorce
1. From Latin divortium - "to divert, go opposite directions"
2. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), but not unforgivable sin
3. God's mercy and forgiveness in Jesus Christ

VII. Dynamics for the functional relationship of marriage

A. Marriage only functions by the dynamic of God's grace through Jesus
B. God's grace is received by faith - our receptivity of His activity.
C. Christians have freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1,13); not formulas of marital performance of roles.
1. The liberty of living in God's love
2. The risk of abuse.
D. Forgiveness is essential
1. No spouse exhibits a perfect expression of Christ's love
2. We all express selfishness and patterns of fleshliness (Gal. 5:17)
hoping this helps
Every Blessing
John
3. Forgiveness is only a result of the function of the Forgiver in us.

[_Steve]

Hi John,
Thanks for posting the above biblical summary. It resembles, in many respects, my article called "What is Marriage?" which can be found at my website (www.thenarrowpath.com, at the "topical articles" link). I certainly agree with most of what you have written, even the parts for which there was no scripture cited.

I hope I may be able to be of service to you in correcting one mistake, which is commonly made, and which you included in your summary. It is a common claim of modern "evangelical feminists" (as they call themselves) that the word "head" (Gr. kephale) does not carry the idea of authority, but is rather a word meaning "source" (as in the "head" or "source" of a river). It is amazing how widely this misconception has been circulated by the feminist literature (although it has been long-since disproven), and how uncritically it has been accepted (without any lexical support) by those desperately wishing to eliminate the biblical doctrine of the husband's headship (leadership; authority) in the marriage.

I have read the feminists' books and know their arguments intimately. Fortunately, that is not all I have read. I could tell, even from the scripture's use of kephale, that the primary meaning could never be "source", but when I looked into the lexical evidence (the use of "kephale" in all Greek literature of the New Testament period) it clearly confirmed what a common sense reading of the biblical text would have suggested. I will share with you what that evidence is.

First, the basics. The word "kephale", like our word "head," has, as its principal meaning, a literal head--that is, of a human or an animal. Secondarily, as in all languages, the same word is often used metaphorically, as in the "head" of an army, or of a nation, or of a corporation (suggesting leader or authority). The Bible teaches that "The head of every man is Christ; the head of the woman [wife] is the man [husband]; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor.11:3). It also says, "For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church"(Eph.5:23).

In English, the word "head" may even be used metaphorically for a "river head", or the spring at the source of a river. However, kephale, so far as can be ascertained by lexical evidence, does not carry this meaning in the Greek of the New Testament period.

This last statement is vehemently denied by the evangelical feminists. They say that the scriptures are not affirming the authority of the husband over the wife (nor, apparently, the authority of Christ over the church!), but rather that Paul is only reminding us that Christ is the "source" of the church, and the husband is the "source" of the wife, since "woman was taken out of man"--without any suggestion of authority or submission. But their protests are to no avail. They are defeated on the battlefield of lexical Greek studies, as well as obvious scriptural usage.

As for the former, I highly recommend (only to those who really care about the truth of the matter) the appendix about "The Meaning of Kephale" in the book "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," edited by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. In this appendix, Wayne Grudem interacts with the feminist authors on this point, and presents the results of his extensive research on the usage of "kephale" in the Greek language over a period beginning four-hundred years before the time of the New Testament, and ending four-hundred years after. Thus he surveys every instance of the word kephale appearing in all extant Greek literature spanning eight-hundred years, with the New Testament being written right in the middle of that period.

The bottom line: In well over 4000 instances of the use of kephale, the most common usage was of a literal head of man or animal (not surprisingly); then there were the metaphorical uses, the most common of which was of a commander, ruler or leader of a group of people (obviously suggesting authority, not "source"). I believe he found only two instances of kephale referring to the end of a river. However, even here the meaning was not "source," but rather the word was used for BOTH ENDS of the river--the spring and the mouth! Thus he found no evidence whatsoever of the meaning of kephale being "source."

In addition, he pointed out that none of the Greek lexicons that specialize in the koine Greek of the New Testament even list "source" as one of the possible meanings of kephale. In other words, there is nothing, apart from the imaginations and wishful thinking of the evangelical feminists, to support any idea of kephale ("head") meaning "source" in the New Testament documents.

But we could have discovered that from the New Testament usage alone. Even if there were evidence that "source" was one possible implication of kephale, in certain instances, we could easily see (unless we did not wish to) that it certainly does not have this meaning in the Pauline usage.

While some of the occurrances in Paul might be thought to be ambiguous, there are at least a couple of passages where Paul's use of kephale is unmistakable (I suppose nothing is really "unmistakable" to those committed to being mistaken).

In Ephesians 1:20-22, Paul writes: "which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand [a position of authority] in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named [all affirmations of supreme authority]...and He put all things under His feet [suggesting subordination to authority], AND GAVE HIM TO BE HEAD [kephale] OVER ALL THINGS to the church..."

There can be no avoiding the associations of kephale here with the concept of authority, and the suggestion that it could mean "source" here is artificial, arbitrary and counterintuitive, given the context.

Also, in Ephesians 5:22-23, Paul writes: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord, for the husband is head [kephale] of the wife..."

Here, the headship of the husband is given as the reason for the wife's submission. It is plain that the meaning of "source" would be absurd here. The husband is not the "source" of his wife--her parents are.

Also, the fact that someone is another person's "source" is not a logical argument for unilateral submission of one to the other. My grandfather is my source (certainly more directly than he is the source of his own wife!), but this does not translate into an obligation of me submitting to him. In fact, if I were a government official, and my grandfather were a private citizen, there is a sense in which he would, in certain circumstances, have to submit to me. It makes no sense to say, "Wives, submit to your husbands, because they are your source," but it makes perfectly reasonable sense to say, "Submit to your husband, because he is your leader/authority."

If I liked the evangelical feminists better than I do, I might find it painful to watch them writhe and squirm and desperately fabricate silly arguments in the face of the hard data that proves them wrong--but as it is, I only find it amusing.

I hope you may count yourself blessed, and not cursed, by having been corrected on this point. You needn't ever make that mistake again. I personally love to be disabused of my wrong ideas. I hate making mistakes, especially in my misrepresenting the teaching of the Word of God!

And here is one other thing. You said that "Male supremacy is the curse." I am curious about the philosophy or motivation that informs such a statement. First, because it is manifestly unscriptural; and second, because it is not at all obvious why anyone should believe this. Frankly, it sounds (coming from a male) like an embarrassed apology for being a male. Many men have been made to be ashamed of their gender, because we have been told for so long that we have been the oppressors of women throughout history. I, for one, have never oppressed any man, woman or child, and have not the slightest guilt, nor pride, about being a male. Men are about as good and about as bad as women. As you mentioned, in citing Galatians 3:28, there is no difference between male and female, where the need of salvation by grace is concerned. We can stop making gratuitous, self-depreciating remarks about our gender any time now.

Let us think clearly about this matter of "Male supremacy" being "the curse." Everyone that I know is under the dominion (supremacy) of someone, even if that someone is one's self. Is the supremacy of myself really less of a curse than is the supremacy of a God-appointed leader over me? Just imagine how this attitude would play out in an army sent to battle, where each man is under the "supremacy" of a ranking officer, and someone insisted that things would be far more pleasant if every man were simply to be answerable to himself alone!

If I am incompetent (just by way of illustration) as a brick-layer, but I am employed by a journeyman, who places me under the tutelage of an obnoxious, but competent trainer, is it more of a curse for me to be under this man's authority, or would it be best to be left to myself to make my own mistakes? If I insist on the latter, I should start my own business, so that I do not make my mistakes at another's expense! It is not obvious why my being under the authority of another would be less desirable than being under the authority of myself, unless I am an incorrigible control-freak.

Now lets subtract the element of competence and say that I am employed as a hamburger-flipper at Burger King. I am told that I am to answer to the shift manager, who might not be very pleasant, nor more competent than myself. Should I argue that the owner of the establishment has cursed me by hiring me to a position where I must answer to one who is no more intelligent than myself? Would not such a complaint be met with the response, "I thought you applied for this job. If you want to be your own boss, start your own business!"?

Are the players on a football team under a curse because they must submit to the decisions of the team captain or the coach? I doubt that they feel this way. I imagine they are happy just to be able to play on the team.

As I said in my first post (above), marriage is an institution that is entered voluntarily. If a woman (or man) doesn't like the authority structure chosen by the Coach, let him/her play alone--but don't let him/her complain that the Coach of this team has established a hierarchy and that each participant is assigned a well-defined role for the good of the whole team. You may participate or not participate in the game, but you must not decide to participate and then attempt to change the rules, reorganize, redefine, and overthrow the designs of the Captain, or the Coach, who has magnanimously invited you to play in His game.