Seriously???

I doubt anyone is going to respond to your acerbic post. I don't blame them.

Any man who stands up for his principles is a superman in my eyes and especially when he will incur the wrath of the persecuting side. Misogynism in the church has done more damage than anything.

Just to add that l believe that the man is to be the head and leader of the family. His role is also as protector of the woman because God knows that women have a hard time in this man's world. They have different roles but are created equal in God's sight which is sadly not obeyed in the church where they are often only good for children's work.

When God said that man will rule over the woman He knew what would happen and it has been true. Not only did the man Adam disobey God he tried to blame the woman who had been deceived so he had not protected her either.

Well said Julius. We do with a lot more godly men like you.

"Men are to submit to their wives as wives submit to their husbands."

This is not true. There is not one shred of biblical support for such a statement. Ephesians 5:21 does not make Ephesians 5:22-33 void, and Galatians 3:28 does not contradict it nor make it void either (actually, it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject, though self-proclaimed "Christian Feminists" do try to use it to void whole passages of scripture in order to preserve their erroneous doctrine).

There is no clear command for men to "submit to their wives" in scripture. But there is at least one where wives are instructed to "be subject" to their husbands "in everything" - "as unto the Lord".

That is not misogyny - it's the word of the LORD.

I do not "lord over" my wife's faith or rule over her in a spiritual sense, but in things natural I do have the authority. This does not necessarily contradict love and meekness and humility - even though in the minds of some it apparently does.

Also, I am tasked with teaching my wife the truth of God and we are really counted as one person in God's eyes - in accordance with Jesus' teaching that "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder." Just as the body is subject to the head, though not necessarily inferior to it - but necessary and glorious, and the two are interdependent: so are the husband and wife.

Authority - though often perverted and usurped and abused - is not, in itself, evil. Nor is submission to authority evil in itself; so long as it is "under God" - meaning that it is God-given authority and it is held and exercised in the fear of the LORD and according to the revealed will of God.

But denying the revealed will and word of the Lord in favor of ones own idea and concept of equity and justice is "evil" and very dangerous. It is a form of usury and rebellion.

I wonder how many people secretly believe Paul was a misogynist for (in the Spirit) forbidding women to teach or exercise authority over men in the church?

This is not "persecution" as one has stated in this thread - it is truth.

_________________
~ Forrest

It is quite possible that Brenda meant that we should submit to the Spirit of Christ in one another but even if not, I would find it very difficult for any husband here to tell me they have not submitted to their wife in any request their wife may have made to them regarding their home, children, schooling, appointments, etc, etc, etc. Surely, your wife has spoken some wisdom to you (from the Lord) and you realized she was right and you submitted to that wisdom. My wife has also lovingly shared scriptures in a very timely way to me and of course not to submit to her, but to ponder what the Lord might be saying. Am I to tell her that only I can share the Word?

And, what about conjugal relationships? I submit to you (excuse the pun) that the way that the world uses submit is in a very "hard", militaristic way, maybe. Soften the edges a bit on the word and you will see that Christian husbands and wives submit (acquiesce) to one another all of the time. It is all wrapped up in loving and respecting one another.

Paul was not a misogynist.

We can't read Paul through the societal lens of a 21st century perspective, rather than the 1st century world in which Paul lived.

In Paul's time, women were considered their husband's property, not their partner, and they had very few rights or protections. They certainly would not have agreed with this scripture:

1Pet 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

"Heirs together of the grace of life". This is what Paul refers to when he says in Christ, there is no distinction between man and women. They both equally can receive the Holy Spirit's power to be a witness for Christ and to overcome Satan, the world and the flesh. And we have also seen God use women in very powerful ways. (Jackie Pullinger, Elizabeth Elliot, Jessie Penn-Lewis to name a few).

Probably, the most revolutionary thing about Paul's teachings about marriage in Ephesians is that husbands were to love their wives sacrificially "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" and husbands were to nourish and cherish their wives as Christ "nourishes and cherishes" His church (Eph. 5:25, 29).

Paul's speaks about the essential equality of husband and wife (in 1 Corinthians) on the most intimate, conjugal level. He instructs the Corinthians that in marriage the husband and the wife have equal right to conjugal relations:

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
. . . .(I Cor. 7:3-5a, NASB).

This was written during a time where wives were considered the property of their husbands.

No, Paul was no misogynist.

Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Brother Greg,
I don't believe the person you quoted was calling names, but instead referring to one sister calling a brother "Superman" or referring to him as "a superman."

Though a couple times the term "Misogynist" was used (presumably in reference to those who hold a Complementarian view instead of an Egalitarian one)...

That, in my opinion, is far more derogatory of an instance of "name calling" (and far more damaging) than that which you called out...

Don't you agree?

At one point, a mention was made of alleged "persecution" that those men who ascribe to a more Egalitarian doctrine endure from the "mysogynists" in the church (again, presumably the Complementarians). This type of martyr complex and demonizing of those who disagree with you is not loving nor productive either.

Just my thoughts...for what it's worth.

Blessings, brother Greg, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to add my two cents on this website.

_________________
~ Forrest

_________________
~ Forrest