The movie Fireproof opened this weekend, which is some Christian movie. They do great business here, any christian movie (or even Ben Stein's laugh a minute Expelled) is a gold mine.
The churches got their congregations to go together, and some even had t-shirts.
Now, the movie is about a husband (Kirk Cameron) whose marriage is failing, and he finds that he must restore his relationship with God before he can restore it with his wife. With God, their marriage becomes Fireproof.
And the t-shirts said on the back "Never Leave Your Partner Behind"
My question: Does your wife really count as a "partner" if you believe she should be subservient to you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Oh brother.
I've written TONS of stuff on this very issue, but unfortunately I don't have time to get into any detail. But PLEASE read this: http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mc16.htm - or at least the second half of it.
In the words of John MacArthur, the "submission" of the wife mentioned in Ephesians 5:22-23 "is not the husband's to command but for the wife to lovingly and willingly offer."
To say that a Christian marriage means one where the wife is "subservient" is true, in a sense, but very misleading. The husband and wife are defined to be equals - they just have different roles to play.
If anything, though, the Bible demands that the husband put the wife BEFORE himself. The husband is supposed to be the "head of the household" - but the verse continues, "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her."
In other words, the husband is supposed to serve as the "tie-breaker" in those VERY RARE cases when a stalemate is reached. Call it a "constitution" of last resorts, if you will. Which is worse, the husband casting the deciding vote or the couple splitting apart over "irreconcilable differences?" At the same time, though, the husband bears the ultimate responsiblity for ensuring the well-being of his wife...and putting her interests before his own.
I was unconvinced by that article. The last paragraph was especially bad, about why the woman shouldn't be the head of the household. Those claims were unfair to women, I think.
So, the mans role is to be the tie-breaking in "irreconcilable differences", and the wifes roles is to lovingly and willfully offer herself to her husband? Hrm.
And, isn't an irreconcilable difference just that? One that cannot be reconciled? So, why would the wife be truly satisfied by the husbands decision? Because the husband is arbitrarily given the role as the tie-breaker?
Why not just play rock-paper-scissors? That makes as much sense to me.
I'm sure you have written a lot of articulate things on the matter, but I doubt I can be convinced.
My ex-girlfriend told me often that if were to be married, that I would make the decisions, because of the whole subservience thing. I was horrified by this. I argued with her all the time about it. Is that an irreconcilable difference?
And if I were to make the decision that I didn't have the supreme authority in the marriage, would that be ok? Or would God destroy me for confusing Him so? (Sorry about that last part, I confused myself with my scenario... also I don't mean to offend your god, I really don't.)
*sigh* another blog about religion
...
I'm sorry. What would like me to talk about next? Hmm? I just write about whatever is on my mind at the time. Have any suggestions? Maybe I should have a disclaimer:
WARNING THIS POST CONTAINS SOMETHING ABOUT RELIGION, READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.
I've been quietly reading all of your blogs, Mark. And I have to say this is a bashng towards Christianity more than anything else. The statements made by Matt can be backed up by scripture, yet you seem to be pushing your own personal opinion as something that must be taken as the truth. Each blog builds harder comments towards this religion. I'm certain that you posted something along the lines of not wanting to offend someone for their religous beliefs. Even though I am not a part of the Christian religion, I find this quite hostile. I'm looking forward to your next blog.
Backed up by scripture? Is this supposed to mean anything to someone who doesn't believe the Bible is God's word?
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "yet you seem to be pushing your own personal opinion as something that must be taken as the truth".
Is merely expressing my thoughts and views pushing them to be truth? I strongly believe all the things I believe. I don't care if you agree with me, I just want to express my views.
Should I perhaps add "oh and by the way this is just my opinion, not to be taken as fact. These opinions have less weight than those in a book some people think was written by God, so if you disagree and have scripture to back you up, I must be wrong."
Sorry if it seems I am hostile to the christian religion.
I wish people didn't view religion as such a sensitive issue. I wish that we could have a real conversation discussing these things without someone getting offended. Most people cannot have these discussions with themselves though, let alone with others.
You can walk up to me and tell me that I am going to burn in hell. I don't care. You can try and tell me why my personal "religion" is wrong. You can tell me why you think I am immoral for not believing in a higher power.
This is great. Why are we bashing Mark for pushing his personal opinion?
*News Flash*
(This is a blog!)
This is Mark's space on the Internet specifically created by him to give us his own opinions. He can say whatever he wants to say; if you don't agree with it, you have the freedom to speak up, but please refrain from being so silly and criticizing him for giving you his own opinions in a blog he created for that very purpose!
Let's all be peaceful and have a calm, rational, open-minded debate. We'll let Mark say his piece; and then say ours. It's not that complicated.
Post a Comment