In Defense of Godly Submission

This is my response on a forum in relation to the topic of Godly / Biblical Submission. This is a topic that is very near and dear to my heart. I consider it to be one of the most important things that is lacking in most relationships in this day and age. I truly feel that more women would be happier in their marriages if they would just give in to God...and submit to their worthy husbands.

And so, I wrote the below:

---

I have written on the topic of submission so many times now that I don't even know where to begin! lol

I'm a very firm believer in Godly headship, and that women are to submit to their husband's authority. The husband, in turn, must answer to Christ and ultimately God for the health, safety, and well-being of his family-- not only spiritually, but also physically, mentally, and emotionally as well. A man who is abusive or uses Godly submission as an excuse to trod upon his wife IS NOT DESERVING OF HEADSHIP.

IMO, the key to being able to submit to Godly authority-- and therefore to your husband-- means having a husband WORTHY of submitting to!

A Godly man that does his best to be all that he has to be to ensure the happiness and safety of his family. He works hard, takes care of his children, leads his family spiritually. He is a strong man and therefore he makes it easier for a Godly woman to submit to him.

Much like any company or institution, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE PERSON IN ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. There is a President and a Vice-President, but the President is always the higher authority, the end-all, be-all of decision-making.

No business can be run when every moment is a power-struggle, when every executive decision made is constantly questioned and nitpicked and second-guessed. All this sort of behavior will do is start to make the President second-guess his every move...and eventually he won't want to make a decision at all, his self-confidence being completely shattered because no one is confident IN him.

Does that mean that the President does not ever CONSULT his VP? No, of course not. They should have calm, rational discussions on a day-to-day basis regarding the runnings of the business. They should not let their wants and emotions get in the way of reaching a decision, but do what is best for the entire company.

Ephesians 5:25-33

King James Version (KJV)

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
²⁶ That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
²⁷ That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
²⁸ So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
²⁹ For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
³⁰ For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
³¹ For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
³² This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
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.

The bible does not tell husbands to SUBJUGATE their wives, nor does it say that wives must tolerate abusive, controlling behaviors. It does not say that men must schedule out every waking moment of their wife's life.

The bible COMMANDS men to love their wives as their own body! So clearly, they would be going against God's expressed commands if they were to abuse the trust their submissive wife has placed in them!

I do have a mind. I have thoughts and opinions. I have beliefs. And I can and DO express all those things to my husband-- who IS my Head of Household. And you know what? Because he is worthy of my submission, he listens to every word I say and takes my counsel into account before he goes and makes huge decisions that will effect our relationship or our entire family.

Does he tell me what I should wear every day? What we should eat? How I should do my hair (or in my case, mandate that I cover)? What we should buy at the store? ...and on and on and on? Heck, no! He trusts me enough to know that I am perfectly capable of presenting myself as a good, wholesome, modest, feminine woman. He trusts me enough to know that as his wife, companion, and household steward, that I know more about running the house and other things of importance than he does! And when/if I'm unable to perform my role as a homemaker (such as if I'm ill, or like now, when I'm unfortunately working and he's laid off)...well, he just asks me how I think he should do it!

A real man would never be afraid to ask his woman how to do anything. As the Head of the Household, it is his responsibility to ensure that he knows ALL the functions of the house, his own responsibilities as well as mine.

I think the rub lies in what people think "SUBMISSIVE" actually means. It's been so twisted and distorted and given such a negative connotation that there is always this massive knee-jerk reaction whenever the word is even casually mentioned. You can thank (or rather, blame) feminism for that one.

Through searching the scriptures for the actual TRUTH, people can come to learn what REAL submission means and how they should live their lives in a God-fearing manner.

My Personal Debate Over Hairstyling

So I've been doing a lot of reading and thinking lately (those are two of my most-used personality traits). As I've written before, modesty and submission are both huge things for me. They are absolutely essential to my psychological and spiritual makeup, as it were. I've gotten to thinking more about being modest and being submissive, and what that means to me.

I've had some huge issues where it regards my head, head-covering, and hair. A lot of people claim that 1 Corinthians 11 is referring to hair as a head-covering. I can't say that I agree with them, because I feel that the headcovering mentioned there is referring to something physically covering over the top of a woman's head. However, I can say that I get where they're coming from, and some of that feeling is manifesting in my internal debate.

As much as I've always tried to stay away from just using the bible as a source for Truth, it doesn't seem to happen, because I find a LOT of Truths in there. One of the ones I've been thinking about revolving around this subject is a particular idea that a woman's hair is her glory.

Since I was thirteen, I've been chopping my hair off. I'm not talking about shoulder length or anything like that: I mean full-out boy-short hair. I think doing so was a huge part of my "rebellion"-- if you can even call it that; I was nothing if not a very compliant child AND teen-- against my father's belief that all women and girls should have long hair.

I've justified wanting to chop off my hair a million different ways. I've gone the route of "It's my body and I'll do what I want with it" (shudder, I sound like a die-hard feminist liberal harpy bitch in that one...). I've reasoned with myself that it's only hair and it'll grow back anyways. I've said that having a short haircut makes me feel more cute or active or confident or self-assured or insert-positive-adjective-here. I've also worked it around in my head that because my hair is so coarse and thick, it tends to give me headaches the longer it gets, so the best solution is to just cut it short. Not only that, but it's a mess to try and untangle once it gets to that certain point.

But now I'm kind of at a time in my life where I feel evermore a huge desire to look and act more feminine, and that part of me that grew up with my Daddy mandating that women MUST have long hair is starting to prod at me again. Not only that, but the last time I got my hair cut, I was extremely pleased with the outcome...but it seemed to me that my HOH was not so much. He preferred my hair longer, and truth be told, his opinion of how I look matters to me more than my own opinion of how I look. After all, he's the one looking at ME day and night, while the only time I look at myself is when I look in a mirror. I don't do that all too often, so...

I'm not sure...CAN a woman be feminine and girly while still having short hair? Is wanting to keep my hair short a matter of pride for me? Should I or should I not value my HOH's opinion of my looks over my own? 

Because I'm having an urge to let it grow and suffer the headaches-- literal and figurative-- that goes along with it, with the idea that it will please my HOH and God to be more womanly in appearance.

Decision: undecided. Sigh.

Submission vs. Religion

One of the things I've griped about to K on a regular basis is dealing with labels. The inconsistencies and misinformation about just what submission is was one of the reasons I decided to make this blog in the first place. I've spent plenty of time on here already writing about why submission doesn't automatically mean BDSM, but now I want to go another route: religion.

I've been doing research on submission for years. Even as a teenager, I realized this innate need to be submissive, which sparked hours upon hours of fruitless searching for others like me. The best place to research, of course, is the internet, but simply Googling "submission" or "submissive" is bound to give an absolutely massive list of things I'm not looking for. One of those, of course, is religion.

I'm a firm believer in Natural Order. While I am very spiritual, not all of my beliefs line up precisely with biblical teachings, and it's for that reason I shy away from any sites proclaiming submission due to God's will. It doesn't take rocket science for me to understand that it IS, in fact, God's will for a woman to defer to her husband. I just personally don't feel that I need the bible to tell me that, nor half a hundred fundamentalist Christian ladies to tell the same.

I've spent some time talking about Natural Order before. For those that can't be bothered to read, I'll give my interpretation of it. God created the universe, and with it came all those tricksy little rules we call scientific Laws. Try for a moment to go against the Law of Gravity, and see what happens. The Laws of Motion...no one can get out of those. The list, in fact, is simply staggering: our entire universe is governed by all these laws, and there's nothing anyone can do to change them. Unfortunately, there is one law that's never talked about, and that's in regard to household roles.

The reason for that, of course, is simple to find. Feminism has gone a long way toward ruining Natural Order by insisting that a woman is weak, lazy, or selfish if she desires of a Natural, traditional way of life in her relationship. The fact of the matter is simple: not EVERYONE can be a leader. For every leader, someone must follow. This is truth in every aspect of human relationships, from the workplace to the home. Why, then, are we told that it's wrong if we follow Natural Order and take a step back so our men-- generally considered natural-born leaders-- can head the household and do the leading for us?

All over the bible there are commandments or assertations that a man should be the head of the household. One quote goes like this:

Ephesians 5:22 -- Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
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. --KJV

The commandments here-- this scripture being the foremost quoted in favor of biblical submission-- are as plain as day. A woman is instructed to submit to her husband, and a husband is commanded to LOVE his wife as his own body. It doesn't command him to lord it over his wife, or make her feel inferior to him.

The rub lies in the translation of the word "submit". There are so many misunderstandings of the word that the actual term gets entirely lost in translation the moment it's said.

Dictionary.com defines the word submit this way:

sub·mit
[suh-b·mit] verb, -mit·ted, -mit·ting.
verb (used with object)

1.
to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
2.
to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.
3.
to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others: to submit a plan; to submit an application.
4.
to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually followed by a clause): I submit that full proof should be required.

So submission, in essence means to yield or defer authority to another. Nowhere in this definition is there an allusion that doing so makes one less superior or less intellectual to another. Nowhere does it say that the one doing the submitting loses everything of themselves, nor does it state that the person in authority has the ultimate, final say.

Now, I promised myself that I wouldn't get too heavily into the bible as the basis for this article. Not everyone follows the bible or the teachings of Christ, and it's my determination to keep out religion as much as I can throughout this blog. It was something I had to talk about at least once or twice, however, because of the staggering number of people that follow these Natural Laws due to religious convictions.

I went ahead and did a bit of research on men versus women in the role of natural-born leadership capabilities, and while there's plenty on the subject itself, I found a post by a lady on some random forum that sums it up perfectly. 

 

Are men really more intelligent than women? Why have men been made natural leaders? Why do we always rely on them to make vital decisions?

Well let’s start by analyzing the differences between the two sexes. Women and men aren’t the opposite of one another but on the contrary they complement each other: this means that one isn’t superior to the other when abilities are involved. If men are physically stronger, women are emotionally stronger; sometimes the strong will of women have made them able to go through tougher physical pains and struggles such as delivery and menstrual pain. What man could ever bear the pain of giving birth to a baby? Sounds strange but someone could say that all in all men aren’t as strong as they claim but that women, maternal instinct combined with the love for their loved ones, are better survival in tough times. But even at this point men are still made leaders in every department worldwide. The society has been patriarchal as long as we can remember and the justification has always been the hierarchy inspired by God to men in the Bible. However there are some societies where religions like Islam, Judaism and Christianity are unknown but yet the man is still the head of the home. Why?

The answer is more simple than it seems. Naturally men are instinctive: this means they are physical just like most of their needs. Like wild animals (no offense meant) their main preoccupations are to protect their lives and those of their loved ones and provide them with everything they need to be safe. That’s what we call “Survival Instinct”. Since their role is to protect lives, they have developed the ability to think faster (not necessarily deeper) than women, as it can take less than a second for a life to be broken. They might be insensitive to internal suffering but they sure perceive any type of threat to their safety. This said, we can understand why men are natural leaders but we still haven’t answered another important question: are they really more intelligent?

Being instinctive means thinking primarily of our needs, thus putting ourselves before any other thing. If we think just a moment of those people we repute to be intelligent we’d see they are those who somehow always do all they can to get what they want. Not just anything but the one which requires less time. Normally we say these individuals are smart because they know the easiest and fastest way to success, well men are just like that. Used to think fast when problems arise they give the impression of being smarter but they are simply instinctive because if we should consider every aspect of the decisions they make we’d see that only the antecedent has been considered and not the consequence. Whatever will be, will be. Women on the other hand, being more emotional, are likely to put themselves in other people’s shoes so they always reflect on what can happen if they should act this way rather than that way. This makes them quite slow in decisions making, but that doesn’t make them less capable: in fact they are accurate observers and analyzers.

Knowing this defect of ours of taking too much time to make a decision, we often let the men make those that are required immediately: finance; while we keep the others which concern a farther future to ourselves: getting married, creating a family; long term decisions to be precise.

After this brief but attentive breakdown of the differences between men and women, we can conclude by saying that both sexes are intelligent: men are fast thinkers, while women are attentive observers. However if the latter never think of possible reactions to their actions, the former also take too much time to act. All in all, they are on the same level. One can’t be without the other. The man would go on creating one disaster after the other, while the woman would get old thinking of what move she should make.

Ending: oh, yes! We sure complement each other!

--michelin89, taken from http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-143533.0.html

As can be seen through the course of this segment, there's absolutely no need to point toward religion as the only reason for natural dominance or submission. It's a simple biological fact that men are hard-wired toward supporting, providing, and protecting, while women are wired for loving, caring, and nurturing. Going against that grain is simply going against Natural Order.

Now, I'm not saying that these traits are 100% true across the board. This isn't about absolutes where it concerns personalities. I've met many strong women, and many nurturing men. That doesn't mean, however, that a strong woman MUST be dominant in order to be fulfilled, nor does it mean that a nurturing, loving man must be submissive because that's just their nature. Their true nature is to follow what Natural Law dictates, because none of these traits are mutually exclusive. One doesn't have to ONLY be strong and dominant at the same time; one doesn't have to ONLY be nurturing and submissive at the same time.

The fact of the matter is simply this: religion did not CREATE Natural Laws. They are only reinforcing the Absolute Truth of the matter. Therefore, there's very little need to bring religion into it at all.

Dreams.

All little girls start out wanting a white picket fence, a handsome, loving husband, and babies. Then, for some reason, they "grow up" and start wanting other things, like jobs or careers. I was one of those that never "grew up". I did my time working out of the home, and I honestly hated it. All I really wanted was to settle down, be a wife, and have babies.

I wanted to be a housewife. It took a lot of years before I was finally able to get what I wanted, and now that I'm able to devote 100% of my time at home to my loving husband, my five year old son, and the upkeep and happiness of my home, I've found that it's made ME a happier person. I'm glad to be where I am, and doing what I'm doing. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Feminism.

Most people would probably say that I am one of those traditional sort of people. I believe that the best place for a woman is in her home with her children, and it's a man's responsibility to support his family. Now, I understand completely that in this day and age it's very difficult to make ends meet. We're no longer in the 50s, where mom can stay at home and dad can go to work and come home from his 9 to 5. However, if it's possible, I don't see why it shouldn't be that way.

As I was growing up, I was always told "Don't let people drag you down for being a woman. You can be whatever you want to be, do whatever you want to do." The part that they seemed to have forgotten to mention is that I could be whatever I wanted SO LONG AS I DID WHAT THEY WANTED, WHICH IS TO GET MY ASS IN GEAR AND HAVE A HIGH PAYING CAREER.

What I did and always have wanted was to be a stay at home mother, but in this society more often than not SAHMs are considered too lazy to work, uncaring and unmindful of the hard work that their mates put in to support their family. They're often espoused as sitting around the house all day, eating bon-bons and watching daytime soaps. Factually, this is rarely true at all. I know it's certainly not the case for me!

Working out of the home is a woman's choice, just like any other choice, and I'd never like to see that taken away. There were a couple of good things that came from the women's movement (one of them being suffrage), but I personally believe that so many families throwing their children into day care has done a lot of harm to society. I think working it out so that a mother can raise her children herself would be of tremendous benefit to all of society.

You can't do it, you say? Too many bills, not enough income without the two paychecks? Try cutting back. Try living more frugally. Use coupons. Shop wisely. Take only one vacation a year instead of two. Cut up those credit cards. Stop borrowing money. Stop feeling the need to have whatever is current and new NOW instead of saving up for it. It's not hard to do, but many Americans wouldn't even bother trying. They're happy with their lives, or at least they think they are.

I sit outside sometimes in the evenings and watch the neighbors pull in from work. They come with their two brand new cars, shuttling their preschool-aged children from daycare into the house. I've never once seen these people play outside with their kids. Hell, sometimes I didn't even realize they had kids for months! How can they think they have the good life when their children are growing up without them, spending every day from seven in the morning till six at night with someone else? I don't know. I just don't think it's right or fair to both parents or their children. Maybe they don't see any other way to do it.

I just find it incredibly sad.

Natural Order and Roles.

I'm a Deist. I use reason and the powers of perception that I was inherently born with to see the miracles of life, showing that there absolutely must be a Grand Creator to have made everything in this vast universe. All the time, human scientists are "discovering" new laws of nature which are only a part of Natural Order, set in place for all time by that said-same creator. It's no huge leap of logic for me to understand that Natural Order dictates male and female roles in human society.

I'm by no means an advocate of men being overly aggressive bullies, nor the idea that women should lay down and take shit from the men in their lives as the proverbial doormat. What I am saying, however, is that it's clear to me that men and women are meant to provide certain roles. Men are the hunters, protectors, and breadwinners of their home, while women are meant to be the heart of the home. Feminism has dictated for many years that women can do whatever a man can, and it's possible that they can do MOST of it. However, in doing so, much of what a woman would want ends up being completely unnatural, going straight against Natural Order.

If you don't believe me, take as an example that of female bodybuilders. Never have I seen something so disgusting as a woman trying to make her musculature into that of a man's. Women are meant to be soft, curvy, and feminine.

I firmly believe that much of what's wrong with today's society has to do with the continually blurring line between what is masculine and feminine. Women are encouraged to "be men" (do anything they like that is masculine in nature), while men, by contrast, are told that it's okay to be effeminate and "metrosexual". If men and women would but look to their God-given strengths and put them to their best advantage instead of constantly trying to be someone they're not, Order would reinstate itself and we'd see a return to better times and more wholesome values than anything that's shown today.

Traditional Values.

Feminazis tell me regularly that I'm bad and wrong for living my dream, that I should get off my ass and go be a man. Funny thing is, though, that I'm actually a woman, and according to them I can do whatever I want. Apparently to them it doesn't matter that what I want is to be a wife and mother, not some soulless high-payed, high-powered, high-stress executive. Staying home is my family's choice. My husband loves that I do, and I'm far happier raising my own son than I ever would be letting some stranger do it for me just for the Almighty Dollar. Things aren't important to me, as everything in America keeps trying to tell me. So long as my family is housed, fed, and happy, that makes ME happy.