tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2613335924468202284.post8394648979412915059..comments2023-07-30T05:51:02.673-04:00Comments on Journey to Surrender: The "Obey" QuestionScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15382135979097709418noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2613335924468202284.post-86759844577002720672011-05-04T07:38:27.376-04:002011-05-04T07:38:27.376-04:00I like how you've separated the idea of submis...I like how you've separated the idea of submission and obedience along the lines if individual agency. interesting post.<br /><br />However I believe the vow to obey has always been the woman's choice. It's in her vows, not his. He promises to lead and love, not to force.<br /><br />I worry that men raised in our overwhelmingly feminized society who are told they must also submit can be led astray from their god-given leadership responsibility. <br /><br />Remembering Jesus as the model bridegroom, Christ does not submit to His Church, but to His father. <br /><br />I've written more about this in <a href="http://goodstrongmen.blogspot.com/2011/01/one-christian-woman-who-strives-to.html" rel="nofollow">obedience and submission</a>. I suggest that submission is a higher law that includes obedience. <br /><br />Also in my recent post <a href="http://goodstrongmen.blogspot.com/2011/05/wedding-vows-to-obey.html" rel="nofollow">wedding vows to obey</a> I share the idea that the traditional vows are not oppressive but are something that many women want.Strong Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03397861817336193206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2613335924468202284.post-17596466060315339362011-05-03T21:11:18.668-04:002011-05-03T21:11:18.668-04:00I am very sorry but I have no idea what happened t...I am very sorry but I have no idea what happened to your comment. I assure you that I did not delete it. I'd appreciate it if you would re-post it. I felt it was helpful to the discussion.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15382135979097709418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2613335924468202284.post-84331751411443846402011-05-03T19:57:37.136-04:002011-05-03T19:57:37.136-04:00I made a comment about this a couple of days ago, ...I made a comment about this a couple of days ago, and now it looks like it is gone. <br /><br />Is that intentional? <br /><br />If you have concerns with something I said, It would seem courteous to respond to those concerns with another comment or at least send me an e-mail to explain. <br /><br />I've made a recent post on my blog about this issue.Strong Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03397861817336193206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2613335924468202284.post-56749480630664009762011-05-02T18:18:28.962-04:002011-05-02T18:18:28.962-04:00Interesting discussion. I'm with you that obe...Interesting discussion. I'm with you that obedience should not be demanded on the part of a husband, and I like your concept of dividing the two issues along the lines of individual agency.<br /><br />The only problem is, in today's heavily feminized society, a man who continually thinks primarily of ways he can "surrender" to his wife can end up abdicating his responsibility to lead his family "As Christ Loved the Church." I don't think Christ regularly thought of "surrendering" to the Church--as much as many modern believers are trying to bend His directions to match their current habits and desires.<br /><br />Of course marriage itself and the marriage vow is a choice. Since at least 1662, women and men have interpreted Biblical direction to include "obey" in the vows, and in Christian western society it has always basically been a free choice. <br /><br />In fact, omitting "obey" is news because the omission is unusual historically in royal weddings. Although Diana ommitted it in 1981, Fergie vowed to "obey" in 1986. <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uDVWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=G-gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7020,1813344&dq=royal+wedding+vows+obey+history&hl=en" rel="nofollow"> Here's</a> one 1960 article that speculates the decision to include "obey" must not have been the man's, but "It must have been Margaret and maybe like a lot of other strong willed women she really in her heart wants to obey some man." <br /><br />Interesting.<br /><br />I've written about the difference between "obedience" and "submission" in my post <a href="http://goodstrongmen.blogspot.com/2011/01/one-christian-woman-who-strives-to.html" rel="nofollow">here.</a> <br /><br />Essentially, I share that submission is a higher law–not contradictory to the idea of obedience, but supporting and enhancing it, and adding to it the principal of free will. . . Submission is an active, voluntary effort to go above and beyond obedience–to actively seek for ways to align your will with another person, even if they’ve not told you a thing to do, even if you have no specific direction from them that you could obey. <br /><br />I'm just concerned that suggesting a wife should submit, but NOT obey (of course of her own free will and choice), can be confusing.Strong Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03397861817336193206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2613335924468202284.post-39392443695322643462011-05-02T12:42:37.842-04:002011-05-02T12:42:37.842-04:00I think the way you have explained it simply aweso...I think the way you have explained it simply awesome. You have said that in the end leading or submitting are simply words to describe the pure feeling of love felt in different ways by a husband and a wife. And the fact that it is natural and NOT forced makes it even more beautiful...<br /><br />I loved the chewing gum example you gave...<br /><br />Thank you for the insight. :)Meghashyam Chirravoorihttp://www.personal-development-is-fun.comnoreply@blogger.com