SASS

Serving through sex (Part 2 – Serving is not submission)

serving through sex

First of all, my apologies to those following this series. My delay in posting is because I’m having a difficult time keyboarding. I’ve completely damaged the muscles in my back – the one supporting the shoulders (trapezius) – and as a result am only able to type for about 10 mins at a time before they start to ache and then burn. Not only that, but my kitchen work has been seriously affected as well. I’m one of the those people who finds it very difficult to sit still … day after ….day, in order to recover; because this recovery must be done while I lay on my back (pun intended, sort of 😉 ) Anyway, all I can do at the moment is read. That’s it. No note taking and researching or writing.

~          ~          ~

In Part 1 I explored the difference between the attitudes of have to have sex and want to have sex. When our mindset is “I have to have sex” we set ourselves up to serving the rules and the law: Being obligated. But when our mindset is “I want to have sex,” we can experience the same powerful transformation that Jesus demonstrated in the garden of Gethsemane: Our hearts will be changed through adapting to God’s plans.

The reason many of us have of a hard time wrapping our minds around this juxtaposition is because we try to reason in our flesh that we need to understand what God is asking of us before we do it. We wrestle with thoughts like:

  • “If it would just make sense then I could adapt.” Or,
  • “If I just knew how this was going to turn out.” Or,
  • “If I do this, how can I be sure that it will be fair?”

Or at the very least, we want to be assured that our spouse won’t take advantage of us in the slightest. It seems we want some kind of guarantee before stepping out in faith. In more lucid moments that are free of conflict, we know this is an oxymoron.

Yet, that is precisely what happened in the exchange between Jesus and God – from an earthly perspective, Jesus got the unfair shake:

But the fact is, it was our pains he carried – our disfigurements, all the things wrong with us. We thought he brought it on himself, that God was punishing him for his own failures. But it was our sins that did that to him, that ripped and tore and crushed him – our sins! –Isaiah 53

In Luke 22:42a, Jesus clearly expresses that execution is not His preferred course of action: please take this cup of suffering away from me. But then in the second part of the verse His change of heart is evident, Yet I want your will to be done, not mine.

 “YET” is the morph from head to heart!

The question we have to ask is how, how did Jesus make this mental shift? The answer: love. He placed His love for God so far above Himself that He was willing to do anything for Him, even to be executed. He demonstrated that love by trusting God. He didn’t need to understand God’s will to want it, He just knew that God is trustworthy and His ways are always excellent.

Love doesn’t say:

  • I will obey and serve with a grin & bear it type of attitude
  • I will obey and serve because it’s what is required & necessary or what I should do

What love does say is, I want to do whatever Your will is.

Serving is for one another not marriage

Service is what we give to others and it’s a great thing. In fact, we are told to serve our brothers and sisters with agape love. For you, brethren, were [indeed] called to freedom; only [do not let your] freedom be an incentive to your flesh and an opportunity or excuse [for selfishness], but through love you should serve one another.–Galatians 5:13

Even done willingly– it’s still a have to. But, when you’ve adapted your heart, your mind is completely renewed, but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideas and its new attitude], (Romans 12:2).

Substituting the word served sexually in place of submitted sexually is an effort to equalize so that serving looks the same in all relationships. No more or less. All the same. But the truth is, all relationships are not the same, nor are they equal to each other.

Marriage is distinct and completely UNlike any other relationship. No other bond is referred to as a huge mystery, a living and visible demonstration of Christ and His Church. And no other relationship commences by a covenant with God Himself. Therefore, no other relationship carries the weight of glory that marriage does.

As such,

God requires much more from us in marriage

than any other relationship.

Submission is for her OWN

A wife is never told to serve her husband, but to submit to him. Replacing serve for the word submit is a mental twist so the heart doesn’t actually have to fully yield to the complete change at the deepest level of relating: becoming one flesh. The flesh seeks to hold onto even the smallest vestige of itself, while at the same time appearing to be altered.

The closeness of the marriage relationship presses in on each spouse in its own way, forcing* us to give way to the spirit over the flesh. The majority of this pressure comes from living in a dual relationship. With both of us being members of Christ’s body, this means that I have a brother in Christ that I am bound to because he is also my husband; I’m Darrell’s sister spiritually and at the same time his wife in the natural. Yes, I serve my brother in Christ, but it is equal to serving any of my brothers (and sisters) in Christ.

However, in marriage I submit to my own husband. In all of the references regarding submission in marriage God added the little word idios meaning own**, signifying that the submission to this particular brother is separate, different and unique to him alone.

Serving is an act – it doesn’t require change between one performance of obligation and the next. When we lump serving in marriage together with all other Christian serving we only blur the uniqueness of the one-flesh purpose between husband and wife and diminish the value of sex. Serving through sex is a method for a wife to compartmentalize the act itself. She will be able to have sex and at the same time not be fully engaged: only as much as she has to be.

God hasn’t defined exemptions for submission that depend on what area of marriage you are talking about. Submission in the bedroom is no different than submission in the kitchen or the living room, or any other area of the home that the marriage lives in.

When I trust that God’s ways are excellent I will adapt to His plan for marriage. The submission of my whole self in marriage will demonstrate to God that I am all in. Nothing will be held back. I won’t be stuck in the mindset of having to serve my brother through sex. Instead, my transformed heart will want to have sex with my husband.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

*Forcing: Job 5:18; Psalm 51:8; Isaiah 60:10; Lamentations 3:32

**OWN: Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:15.

Serving through sex (Part 1 – Adaptability)

untitled

I’ve heard a few times about the idea of ‘serving’ your husband through sex because it’s a need he has. I don’t like that view or the term ‘serving’ as it relates to sex and as the weeks rolled by, I saw it again and again. Every time I saw it, I liked it less and less. This term, serving in the context [of sex] has the slight nuance of obligation (see duty, onus, burden, and liability) to it.

My first feeling is, serving appears to be something you do for the benefit of someone else. In this context, its serve your husband sex for his benefit. And although that might seem right (Proverbs 14:12); somehow it rings false. I think this whole idea of a wife serving her husband sex is an approach that will backfire in the end.

So I want to peel back this idea and see what it exposes.

~ ~ ~

When I let the word serving roll around in my mind, the first thing I’m faced with is a choice: have to OR want to; along with a whiff of resistance – it seems like serving could almost, be placating*.

*to appease or pacify, especially by concessions or conciliatory gestures

*soothe, assuage, mollify.

How did Jesus view serving? If God is renewing my mind to be like Christ’s, then I can look to His example. When God requested that Jesus go to the cross:

  • Did Jesus do it to appease or pacify God?
  • Was His agreement to God’s plan a conciliatory gesture?

Jesus wasn’t double minded. He wasn’t thinking, “Omg!! You want me to do what!? Do I have to?” But speaking out, “I want to do this.” I don’t think so. On the contrary, Jesus grabbed a-hold of God’s idea and adapted His own will to God’s plan of the cross.

HAVE TO / WANT TO

When Jesus saw there was no other way, He adapted immediately to God’s plan. This morphed His have to into the want to (Luke 22:42). When Jesus chose to adapt to God’s plan for His life, as hard as it was, His heart was no longer divided between have to / want to, and the human part of His mind was renewed (Romans 12:2) and it showed in His willingness. God’s plan became Jesus’ plan – they were united.

Adapting enables the flesh to grow up*. Adapting is what changes the stoic ‘have to’ in our flesh of obedience into the loving ‘want to’ in our spirit. (Ezekiel 11:19)

SCENARIO 1: What would you think? Someone who’s serving at church in the nursery because it‘s a need, but they have no interest in children. They’ve been watching your kids for about 6 months and then you overhear a conversation they are having outside of the church on their cell phone. They don’t really like kids that much. Sure they are cute and everything, but it’s not really what you’d like to be doing. However, you feel God will bless you because there is such a need for it – and there was no one else to do it. Would you really feel comfortable and happy with your kids there? Or would you feel better with overhearing a conversation of someone who said, that they really loved kids, in fact they just enrolled in a child care course because their heart really is for kids – they want to.  Or, scenario 2.

SCENARIO 2: You’ve got this good friend who you‘ve been sharing your life with. You meet every 2 weeks for a coffee and a chat. You’ve become very good friends and feel comfortable in sharing your struggles in marriage with her. You need to drop off something at a different friend’s house and your other friend (the one you’ve been confiding to) is there. They are out on the back deck and don’t know you are there. You decide to surprise/scare them by quietly sneaking up to the gate and barging through with a big smile on your face. NO intentions of eaves dropping – because you completely trust both of these women. But as you approach the gate you hear … not what you expected. Your deeper friend is sharing how she really enjoys your company except when you share about your problems in marriage. She finishes her conversation by saying that, it’s what friends do for each other, they serve each other and this is her Christian duty to serve in their friendship.

See, it doesn’t leave you with a true feeling of warmth and care — it’s not authentic.  It is truth … from the obedience of the mind — but not genuine.

Is it just semantics? I don’t know. Let’s try a different angle and drive it down a little deeper into our own personal experience. Look at the flip-side, from ‘serving’ him sexually (his need) to ‘serving’ her relationally (her need).

SCENARIO 3:  You overhear your husband talking to a friend, “I took her [his wife] out for dinner and a movie last night. I didn’t really feel like it, after the day I had I would rather have unplugged into a book or movie, but God says Christian serving is good, and this kind of serving falls on the husband’s shoulders because God made her with this need, so I ‘loved’ her by SERVING her.”  What a shock to hear; you were thinking that you really had a great time of relational intimacy.

If I over-heard that conversation I wouldn’t be feelin the love. I wouldn’t get a sense of being genuinely engaged in a real relationship of any depth; but more of having been appeased.

He is in the mindset of “I have to” not “I want to.” It feels deceitful and is an affront because when we read, For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), we know God didn’t mean for Christ to love the church through conciliatory gestures.  Have to is serving. Want to is loving. I don’t want my husband to have to love me; I want him to want to love me.

So, back to the sex of it … as long as I feel that I am serving my husband through sex, it will always be a conciliatory gesture and never authentic genuine love.

***IT IS ADAPTABILITY THAT CHANGES THE HEART FROM HAVE TO SERVE INTO WANT TO LOVE***

 ~ ~ ~

 

Part 2 – Submission is not serving. Serving is not submission.

 

 

 

*Did the God part of Jesus need to grow up His flesh? Probably not, as the God part of His nature was completely mature all ready. However, the part that was fully human need the flesh contended with. This is part of the testing and suffering that He had to endure to be the first born among many. Jesus lead the way, in demonstration with His own life, to show us what it really means to obey with the right heart.

Submission to surrender

Act of war

Recently I changed the image that I use for verse references in the category of My mouth, my marriage.  BD (userdand) noticed and commented that he liked it, to which I responded:

I find it’s the perfect blend of surrendered wife meets spiritual warrior.”

BD’s response prompted the writing of this post:

“I noticed a subtle use of wording there. I am thinking you do not see them as synonymous, but different sides of the same coin and would be interested in hearing how you feel surrender is complementary to submission.”

He is correct in his observation:  Submission and surrender are different sides of the same coin.

Both English words originate from the same word:  hypotasso.  However, in our English translation it depends on the subtleties of context.  Although grammatically wrong, the words flowed better to capture my meaning.   She becomes a surrendered warrior because of who she is – she is submissive.

Submissive is a WHO, Surrendered is a DO

I’ve used one as an adjective the other a verb.  I am a submissive wife that is able to surrender.  The sentence could be reversed:  I am a surrendered wife that submits.  But this order clouds my understanding because that’s not how God taught it to me.

See the distinction in Jesus

Jesus had an attitude of submission evidenced by His conversation in the garden with His Father. His surrendered heart is demonstrated by the act of following through and being crucified.  The submissive spirit in discussions with God about the execution wasn’t what defeated the enemy, it was the act of surrender:  being executed.  The power of God resurrecting Jesus was the finale in the defeat of Satan.  But without Jesus’ act of surrendering to death, there would have been no resurrection.

The act of surrender is covert

Satan wanted Jesus dead, he’d tried numerous times and in many ways to achieve that goal.  Charles Spurgeon has a great sermon on this you can read it here.  Satan believed that he’d won when he succeeded with the execution of Christ, because on the surface of things, it appeared that Jesus was dead.  But what Satan couldn’t see was the outcome of the act of surrender:  The Resurrection.

Satan knew that Jesus was the Son of God and he also knew that Jesus was going to be executed.  The part that was covert was God’s plan to resurrect Jesus.  God already had the win as soon as Jesus surrendered.

“Checkmate.God

Satan sees who we are and what we are doing; but he cannot see the finale that God has planned to complete our acts of surrender.

Jesus’ act of surrender with the cross looked counter-intuitive to the world’s idea of winning, which is Satan’s perspective.  Surrendering appears to be a loss where the world is concerned – but in the spiritual war it’s the opposite.

It always come back the war

It’s like the military:  They train for action at home base.  Then there is deployment, the act of being at war.  Same division of men with the same ultimate purpose, but different setting and different goal.

Submission is the temperature of the relationship, it’s more of a training ground.  Surrender is the way I act out my submission when Satan attacks me.  Every act of surrender is a sword thrust to Satan.

It is in the moment of surrender that the submissive wife becomes the ultimate warrior in the hands of the LORD.

 

The beauty of submission

Have you ever had a song get stuck in your head?  How about one that peeves you?  It’s not a blatantly graphic song, it just rubs you the wrong way.

For me, it’s 3 Dressed Up As A 9, a song by Trooper. It has been popping into my head since its release way back when.  Normally I would just get peeved briefly and then dismiss it, but this time it kept resurfacing.

It was especially irritating this time because I was studying the controversial subject of submission in marriage and didn’t like the continued interruption.  It seems the more I understand about submission the further out of step I become with the world, while the growth with God, unity in our marriage, and the oneness with Darrell become greater.  The contrast is difficult but also very intriguing.

Admittedly, I used to misconstrue this song as superficial:  she’s not as good looking as she’s made herself up to be, ‘nuff’ said.  Up would go my defensive hairs as I shut down my mind to the rest of the words.

Unable to ignore the song, I opened my computer and googled the lyrics. Pushing past that familiar prickly rise, my eyebrows shot up as I was following along with the words, “OHHH… maybe he’s talking about something else – not merely her looks.”

Although probably not a song about the heart of submission and almost certainly not a Christian song, there may be a bit of truth to extract.  The link for the song is here, if you want to listen to it.  If not, here are the lyrics:

color sample - 100% - Copy

 

Skin deep is shallow

At first glance, this woman appears to be the epitome of beauty; but as she draws closer to him and he has the chance to listen to her, something else starts to surface from within her. She has spent a lot of time and cash on her outer shell, while completely neglecting her inner woman – the heart of real feminine beauty.

  • She looked better when she was 20 feet away.  He doesn’t want to be close to her, in her sphere of influence.
  • She is something nice to admire – from afar.  Not going to get involved because she’ll not be good for him – she’ll end up being a waste of his time.
  • Socially, she appears to be like all other women – she fits in with the rest and that’s the problem.
  • Now she’s closer than 20 feet away.    Words, tones, and mannerisms surface.  What comes out of her is what’s inside. She suits herself only, which doesn’t suit him.
  • Move along. You can’t tempt me with all that Decollete you paid so much for.  You can’t use it to cover up what you really are.
  • He is realizing that she is completely superficial and lacking in depth of woman.

She’s a 3 dressed up as a 9

As I got to the end of the song, my first impression of ‘slightly interested’ had changed to surprise.  This song actually matches what I just read in 1 Peter 3 – how did I miss THIS before!?

There is inner work and outer to do: 1 Peter 3:1-6:

color sample - 75% - Copy

Strategic placement

In verse 3, it’s easy to see from the word [merely] that God isn’t saying, “don’t do this,” but rather, “don’t over-do this.”  Sometimes in the argument of whether wives should ‘beautify/adorn’ themselves, or how much is too much, we miss the bigger picture of God’s strategic placement of this verse.

He sandwiches it smack-dab in the middle of a whole bunch of instructions on submission.  Why, God?  Why put it there? Wouldn’t it have made better sense placed near the verse about, dressing like a guy? (Deut. 22:5)  Or even the one on dressing modestly?” (1 Tim 2:9-10)

Seriously, what does braided hair and barrettes have to do with submissionGod now had my attention.  I had moved from curiously interested to excitement!

This could be big!  It’s like God is saying, “pay attention. The things you do to the outside of your body aren’t nearly as important as how you treat your husband. That treatment comes from the inside of you.  In the shift between verses 3 and 4, God is connecting the dots for us:  submission is what your husband will find beautiful, not the frosting on the outside.

WOWZERS – Look at the ratio of inner to outer:

FIVE to ONE.

  • In verse 1 God is talking about what it is:  It is submission.
  • Then in verse 2 He moves to how it will look:  This is how submission looks.
  • Now in verse 3 the brake gets pressed at a stop sign: THIS doesn’t have anything to do with submission – don’t be fooled.
  • Then, in His usual style, God segues back into the main topic of submission by contrasting the two verses at that stop sign.  It’s brilliant!!  It isn’t until after verse 3, after He has stopped us and gotten our attention that He interjects the word beauty linking it to His main theme – submission.
  • Then in verse 5 He joins it even deeper using the words: beauty, submission, and husband.  He links beauty and submission to your husband!
  • And to finish in verse 6, God doesn’t leave us hanging.  We’ve been given a real life practical example:  SARAH

How I got tripped up 

Often what I wanted to do, was to accept those FIVE references as a … ‘good’ heart kind of thing, much like what is instructed in 1 Timothy 2:9-10, a caring and generous wife woman – rather than an instruction for marriage.   I mean obviously it’s about marriage right?  But there was that darn verse 3 that kept tripping me up.  A good and caring person as I defined it – with the good deeds as instructed from 1 Tim 2:9-10. See the subtle slip there?  If I’m doing good deeds and I’m a caring and generous person in the hidden person of the heart – God knows, right?  If I don’t over-do on the outer person, God knows, right?  See the slip again?

God isn’t talking about the hidden person of my heart as it relates to anyone else or good deeds – like He is in 1 Tim 2 – but only as it relates to my own husband.  He isn’t talking about what kind of mom I am, how much time I spend feeding the poor, cleaning the church, working in the nursery, ministering to neighbors, or any other number of righteous outward actions.

He’s addressing marriage and speaking directly to how a wife relates to her own husband – how she treats him and how she will appear in his eyes.  Verses 1 through 6 are about submission – heart issues for wives.  But in the middle, ever so quietly, God slips in a single warning:  Be careful that you don’t over focus on this.

Bait and switch

To your husband, your true femininity, your real beauty, is not about buying the right brand of make-up and applying it like a true makeup artist on the set of a movie, going to the hair salon every three weeks so your hair is perfectly colored and coiffed, or making sure that your fashions, jewelry, perfume, nails, etc., are the most up-to-date. We women like to be pretty and decorate ourselves. This is part of our femininity, and it’s how God made females. But none if this is more important than a surrendered heart, and it can’t replace one. Not in your husband’s eyes.

Satan uses a single verse to twist and ruin the other 5.  Remember, a little bit of leaven permeates the whole loaf.  Satan wants us to over-focus on what’s not [merely] important.  Here’s the mental ‘switch’ I think he’s after:  if we over-do on the outward stuff, it’s almost like we are surrendering because it’s… well… girlie stuff – we are enhancing our femininity, so we somehow think that this is surrendering.  It isn’t.

So, who do I suit?

The last verse of the song is the clearest for me:  Well, you can say what you like, be what you want to be, you can suit yourself, baby, but you do not suit me.

Do you suit your husband? Or do you say what you like and be what you want to be?  Does he find you beautiful because of your submissive heart?  Or have you put all your thoughts, time and energy in your décolleté?

God didn’t say, “Wives, suit yourselves.”  He said suit your [own] husbands.  He tells us to submit because He knows our husbands will be attracted to that very thing in us – it draws them.  I’m not denying the visual aspect of men, it’s definitely there, but it’s not how well you fill out that new sweater that he adores in you, it’s your surrendered heart.

Décolleté doesn’t have the power or longevity for year after year after year of marriage, but submission [true submission] increases in power. In turn, this power increases attraction to the depth of capturing your husband’s heart.

 

DD isn’t authority

Philosoraptor

 

RobynInTheRaw:  Raw doesn’t mean hurt or angry, but when a woman is brazen enough to step into the authority I have over my own blog, what she’s going to feel is me not letting her usurp my authority.

~~~

I tried to address the sender in private, but when you get no answer, you have no other choice.  This is a reply she sent me in response to my postings about submission and authority:

“Glad you found something that worked for your marriage. This is in reply to both Part I and Part II. Agree & Disagree with some of your conclusions. The main disagreement I have is with your ascertains on Domestic Discipline. DD practice is abuse and sinful practice. Verses in Corinthians speak about what Love is and Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. To say that we practice DD and we have a successful marriage just does not compute and is contrary to a Godly marriage (even if some claim that it works for them). Your spouse is not your child and should be treated as such and not “spanked” “slapped” “intimated” into submission.”

You can find the original post here and the addendum here.

I’m starting to see this mindset a lot and it seems to be the generally accepted view of authority.

The mindset that a husband’s authority is synonymous with discipline.  Sadly, it reveals a fearful and distorted view of authority – something to be hated and vehemently resisted and to be not trusted; and something that is above her in order to diminish and push her down into a non-person.

Women who view authority this way prove they do not trust the very person they are to be one with – the person they are supposed to be cleaved with.  It proves they don’t trust that God gave the authority to their husbands, and they don’t trust their husbands with that God-given authority.

I find this typical of a feminist response in that it’s classic diversion.  They take one little piece of something that has created a conflict within themselves, and cover it with spite and degradation.   Oddly, of all feminists, it is Christian women who speak the loudest.  I read a cute (but true) quote the other day:  What Sally says to you about Michelle, reveals more about Sally than it does about Michelle.

What this commenter fails to realize is that her reply exposes more about herself than it does about my post.  Her opening seems encouraging, but as you read through the reply you can see that its purpose was merely to placate.  With the remainder of her words her true motive is revealed:  She seeks to tear down and destroy.

When she said:

“The main disagreement I have is with your ascertains on Domestic Discipline.”

She was being very vague. This tactic enables you to twist the words of people without being accountable.  You can quote clichés and rhetoric without experiential substance. (Rom 15:13; Eph 3:19)

I don’t have ANY ascertains in regards to DD.  What I did do was comment in the preface of my post that it was none of my business, because I didn’t want to judge someone else’s marriage.  She was seeking to say that I do support DD, when what I actually did was to refrain from making a judgment:

“I’m not saying I condone domestic discipline but neither am I saying that I condemn it.  What I am saying, is that I don’t want to be so narrow as to disregard a couple or their marriage that has obvious proven longevity because some small part might ‘appear’ to be distasteful.”

The Twist:

“To say that we practice DD and we have a successful marriage just does not compute and is contrary to a Godly marriage (even if some claim that it works for them).”

  • I never said it works for us, nor did I say that DD is authority.
  • I never said that the longevity of a marriage was the result of DD.

Read my words again:

“I don’t want to be so narrow as to disregard a couple or their marriage that has obvious proven longevity because some small part might ‘appear’ to be distasteful.”

She is judgmental of another couple’s success in marriage, and the heat from her anger about Biblical Authority and Submission has clouded her senses. She can’t succinctly track with me because she’s blind to it, which is a symptom of pride.  Pride takes one broad brush stroke and sweeps over everything.  It demonstrates the safety sought in religion [the need to make others follow your definition of rules] while denying the freedom of life.

This is the view that has women running around the internet looking for any information on authority and submission and going after every comment with the fervor of a Velociraptor, labelling “Abuse, this is wrong, and it’s abuse!”

“(even if some claim that it works for them)”

Also, why would you pontificate that someone doesn’t know what makes their OWN marriage work?

Another twist:

“Your spouse is not your child and should be treated as such and not “spanked” “slapped” “intimated” into submission.”

I doubt that very many men or women confuse their spouse with a child.  Stating the obvious as a form of defense to back up a viewpoint reveals deep contention.

To put it quite simply, I don’t view a husband’s authority as intimidation any more than the Church views the authority and headship of Christ as intimidation.

And the Pièce de résistance –

Verses in Corinthians speak about what Love is and Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church.”

This is the most provocative and revealing statement, and also probably a large part of the reason women (including my former self) hate authority: Because the root of their focus is pride.

She actually believes she has the right to tell the Potter how to grow His son as a husband, instead of focusing on growing herself as a wife in her own relationship with the Potter.  The proof is in the quoting of a verse(s) that is not applicable:  She is not a husband.  I [Robyn] am not a husband – nor will either of us ever be.

The Twist:

She quotes (as if in reference) the book of Corinthians as whole, thereby alluding to submission and authority in an effort to blend and equalize them to cancel each other out.  But the only part she narrows into and capitalizes on is the responsibility of the husband.  This is done in order to mentally dismiss and deny the sections of authority.

 

robyn