Category Personal Growth

What does it mean to “Submit” to your Husband.
The concept of a wife submitting to her husband is often debated in religious, social, and academic circles. Rooted primarily in biblical teachings, submission in marriage is frequently misunderstood as a form of servitude or oppression. However, a comprehensive understanding of the term, especially in its biblical context, reveals a deeper, more nuanced perspective that emphasizes mutual respect, love, and partnership.

The Biblical Basis of Submission

The idea of submission in marriage originates from several passages in the Bible, with one of the most frequently cited being Ephesians 5:22-24 (New International Version, NIV):

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

At first glance, this passage may appear to suggest an unequal relationship, but when examined alongside other biblical texts, it becomes clear that submission is not about inferiority but about order and function within marriage.

In Ephesians 5:25, husbands are commanded to “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This indicates that a husband’s role is not one of dominance but of self-sacrificial leadership, mirroring Christ’s love for the church.

The Meaning of Submission

1. Submission as Mutual Respect

Biblical submission does not imply blind obedience or suppression of a wife’s voice. Instead, it represents a cooperative and respectful relationship. Ephesians 5:21 states, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,” highlighting that submission is a mutual responsibility, not a one-sided obligation.

2. The Role of a Husband’s Leadership

A husband’s leadership in marriage, as described in the Bible, is not about power or control but about responsibility and love. Husbands are called to lead their families in a way that reflects Christ’s sacrificial love. This form of leadership prioritizes the well-being of the wife and family rather than exerting dominance.

3. Submission Does Not Justify Abuse

Many scholars and religious leaders emphasize that submission does not mean tolerating abuse or unhealthy power dynamics. Biblical submission is always within the framework of a loving, Christ-centered relationship. If a husband acts in ways that contradict biblical teachings—such as being abusive, manipulative, or neglectful—he is failing in his role as a Christlike leader (Colossians 3:19).

Cultural and Modern Perspectives

The interpretation of submission has evolved within different cultural and historical contexts. In many traditional societies, submission was often linked to patriarchal structures where men held absolute authority. However, modern Christian perspectives emphasize equality, complementarity, and partnership rather than rigid hierarchy (Piper & Grudem, 1991).

From a psychological standpoint, studies show that marriages characterized by mutual respect, shared decision-making, and emotional support tend to be healthier and more satisfying (Gottman, 1999). This aligns with the biblical model where both spouses contribute uniquely to the marriage while maintaining mutual love and respect.

Practical Application in Marriage

  1. Decision-Making Together – Biblical submission does not mean the husband makes all decisions unilaterally. Rather, both spouses should engage in open communication and decision-making, with the husband leading in a way that prioritizes the family’s well-being.
  2. Honoring Each Other’s Strengths – A successful marriage recognizes and appreciates the unique gifts and strengths each partner brings. Submission does not mean that the wife’s opinions or contributions are less valuable.
  3. Leading with Love and Humility – Husbands are instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the church, which involves humility, patience, and selflessness. True biblical leadership involves servanthood rather than authoritarian rule (Mark 10:42-45).

Submission in marriage, as outlined in the Bible, is not about control or oppression but about love, respect, and partnership. When understood in its proper context, biblical submission enhances marital unity, fosters mutual support, and aligns with the Christian model of love and service. Both spouses are called to honor and respect one another, creating a marriage that reflects Christ’s relationship with His church.

This article was written by John S Collier, MSW, LCSW. Mr. Collier has over 25 years of experience in the social work and mental health field. It currently serves as the executive director and outpatient behavioral health therapist at southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health based out of London KY. john may be reached by phone at 6066570532 extension 101 or by email at [email protected]

References

  • The Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV)
  • Piper, J., & Grudem, W. (1991). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Crossway.
  • Gottman, J. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. Harmony Books.
  • Keller, T. (2011). The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God. Penguin.

Would you like any refinements or additional perspectives included?

Double Standards in Relationships: What Do They Mean?

In relationships, fairness and equality are crucial for fostering trust and mutual respect. However, the concept of double standards often challenges these principles, creating friction and misunderstandings. A double standard in a relationship occurs when one partner applies different rules, expectations, or judgments to themselves compared to their partner. This imbalance can undermine the relationship’s foundation, leading to dissatisfaction and conflict.

Understanding Double Standards in Relationships

Double standards often manifest in expectations regarding behavior, roles, or responsibilities. These discrepancies can emerge from cultural norms, personal biases, or ingrained beliefs. For example:

  • Gender Roles: Traditional gender roles may result in expectations that men should provide financially while women handle household duties. If a partner criticizes the other for not fulfilling their “role” while not meeting their own responsibilities, it creates an imbalance (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004).
  • Infidelity and Jealousy: One partner may expect forgiveness for flirting or infidelity but become intolerant if the other exhibits similar behavior (Buss, 2017).
  • Freedom and Autonomy: A partner may demand personal space and freedom while controlling or monitoring the other’s activities, reflecting an inequitable power dynamic.

Causes of Double Standards

  1. Cultural Norms and Socialization: Society often reinforces unequal expectations, especially along gender lines. These norms can seep into personal relationships, perpetuating unfair expectations.
  2. Insecurity and Control: Double standards may arise from one partner’s insecurities, leading them to impose stricter rules on the other to feel more secure.
  3. Power Imbalance: When one partner holds more emotional or financial power, they might impose double standards to maintain control (Finkel et al., 2017).

Consequences of Double Standards

  • Erosion of Trust: When one partner perceives an imbalance in expectations, trust is often compromised.
  • Emotional Resentment: The partner subjected to the double standard may feel undervalued or disrespected, fostering resentment.
  • Inequality and Conflict: Unequal standards can lead to arguments, perpetuating a cycle of blame and dissatisfaction.

Addressing Double Standards in Relationships

  1. Open Communication: Partners should discuss their expectations and address perceived inequities.
  2. Mutual Accountability: Both partners must agree to hold themselves to the same standards they expect from each other.
  3. Therapeutic Interventions: Counseling can help identify and address ingrained patterns contributing to double standards (Gottman & Silver, 2015).
  4. Cultural Awareness: Recognizing how societal norms influence personal beliefs can empower individuals to challenge unfair expectations.

Conclusion

Double standards in relationships reflect deeper issues of inequality, insecurity, or societal influence. Addressing these imbalances requires self-awareness, open dialogue, and a commitment to mutual respect. By fostering equality and understanding, couples can create a foundation of fairness and trust, strengthening their bond.

John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW, is a seasoned clinical social worker with over 25 years of experience, serving the London, Kentucky area through Southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health, LLC. Known for his compassionate approach and commitment to quality care, Mr. Collier supports individuals and families with a focus on mental health and well-being. He is available for professional inquiries at (606) 657–0532, extension 101, or by email at [email protected].

References

Buss, D. M. (2017). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. Basic Books.

Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2017). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 28(1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1256692

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work. Harmony Books.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on cultural beliefs in social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269

What is a Situationship? Exploring the Pros and Cons

In modern relationship dynamics, the term “situationship” has become increasingly popular. Though not officially recognized in traditional psychological or sociological terms, a situationship is generally defined as a romantic or sexual relationship that exists without clear, established boundaries or long-term commitment. Unlike casual dating, situationships often involve a level of emotional connection that blurs the lines between a formal relationship and something more casual.

A situationship typically arises when two individuals engage in a relationship-like dynamic without defining their intentions. Unlike a committed relationship, a situationship often lacks labels and exclusivity. It can involve spending time together, sharing emotional intimacy, or even acting like a couple in public, but without the explicit commitment of being “official.”

Characteristics of a Situationship

  • Lack of Definition: Neither party defines the relationship.
  • Inconsistent Communication: There may be regular interaction at times, followed by periods of distance.
  • Emotional Ambiguity: Both individuals may feel uncertain about where they stand.
  • Physical Intimacy Without Exclusivity: Sexual involvement may occur without an agreement to be monogamous.

The Pros of a Situationship

  1. Flexibility and Freedom: A situationship allows individuals to explore a connection without the pressures of long-term commitment. For those focusing on careers, education, or personal growth, it can provide companionship without demanding a structured relationship.
    • Source: Kaplan, H. (2020). “Modern Relationship Dynamics.” Journal of Social Psychology.
  2. Low Pressure: Situationships often lack the formal expectations tied to traditional relationships, reducing stress related to meeting familial or societal norms.
  3. Exploration of Compatibility: It can serve as a testing ground to evaluate compatibility before entering a committed relationship.
  4. Autonomy: Both individuals retain their independence, allowing for personal freedom and decision-making.

The Cons of a Situationship

  1. Emotional Uncertainty: The lack of clarity can lead to confusion, anxiety, or unmet expectations. People involved in situationships often report feelings of insecurity about the other person’s intentions.
    • Source: Miller, R. S. (2018). “Emotional Costs of Ambiguous Relationships.” Relationship Studies Quarterly.
  2. Uneven Investment: One party may develop deeper feelings, leading to a mismatch in emotional investment and potential heartbreak.
  3. Lack of Growth: Without clear direction, a situationship may stagnate, leaving individuals in a limbo that prevents them from pursuing more meaningful relationships.
  4. Social Challenges: Explaining a situationship to friends or family can be challenging, often leading to judgment or misunderstanding.

Navigating a Situationship

To navigate a situationship successfully, open communication is essential. Discussing intentions and boundaries early on can help both parties align their expectations. If the relationship becomes unfulfilling or one person desires a more formal commitment, addressing these concerns is crucial to avoid prolonged emotional strain.

A situationship can provide a casual and flexible connection for individuals who are not ready for a formal commitment. However, it carries the risk of emotional ambiguity and unmet expectations. Understanding the pros and cons can help individuals decide whether a situationship aligns with their personal goals and emotional well-being.

John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW-S

This article has been written by John S Collier, MSW, LCSW-S. collier has over 25 years of experience in the social work field. he currently serves as the Executive Director and outpatient provider at Southeast Kentucky Behavioral Health based out of London Kentucky. He may be reached by phone at (606) 657-0532, extension 101 or by email at [email protected]

John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW-S

References

  • Kaplan, H. (2020). “Modern Relationship Dynamics.” Journal of Social Psychology.
  • Miller, R. S. (2018). “Emotional Costs of Ambiguous Relationships.” Relationship Studies Quarterly.
  • Carter, P. (2019). The New Rules of Love: Understanding Modern Relationships. HarperCollins.
  • Johnson, T. A. (2021). “Navigating Emotional Ambiguity in Situationships.” Psychology Today.

How Trauma Changes the Brain: What You Need to Know

Trauma, whether it’s from a physical injury or an emotional experience, can have a lasting impact on the brain. Thanks to research in neuroscience, we now know that trauma doesn’t just affect how we feel—it actually changes how the brain works. Understanding these changes can help us see why trauma has such powerful effects and how recovery is possible.

What Happens to the Brain During Trauma?

When you go through a traumatic event, your brain switches into “survival mode.” This is controlled by something called the stress response system, which prepares your body to deal with danger. You may have heard of the “fight, flight, or freeze” response. This is when stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline flood your body, helping you react quickly to protect yourself.

This response is helpful in the short term, like when you need to escape danger. But if trauma is ongoing, or if your brain keeps thinking you’re in danger even after the threat is gone, this stress response can do more harm than good.

How Trauma Changes the Brain

Trauma can change how different parts of the brain work and even how they look. Here are the three key areas affected:

1. The Amygdala: The Alarm System

The amygdala is the part of your brain that helps detect threats and process emotions like fear. After trauma, the amygdala can become overactive, making you feel on edge or jumpy even when you’re safe. This is why people who’ve experienced trauma often feel anxious or have trouble calming down.

2. The Prefrontal Cortex: The Decision Maker

The prefrontal cortex is like the brain’s “control center.” It helps you think logically, make decisions, and calm down after a stressful event. Trauma can make this part of the brain less active, which means it’s harder to think clearly, control your emotions, or feel in control of your reactions.

3. The Hippocampus: The Memory Keeper

The hippocampus is responsible for organizing memories and distinguishing between the past and the present. Trauma can make the hippocampus shrink, which is why some people have trouble remembering details of the trauma or feel like they’re reliving it (flashbacks), even when it’s over.

Why Do These Changes Matter?

The changes in the brain after trauma explain many of the symptoms people experience, such as:

• Flashbacks or nightmares: The brain struggles to tell the difference between past and present, so it feels like the trauma is happening again.

• Anxiety or hypervigilance: The overactive amygdala keeps you constantly on the lookout for danger.

• Difficulty focusing or making decisions: A less active prefrontal cortex makes it harder to think clearly.

These changes also show why trauma doesn’t just “go away” on its own—your brain needs time and support to heal.

Can the Brain Heal After Trauma?

The good news is that the brain is adaptable. This ability to change and heal is called neuroplasticity. With the right support, the brain can recover from the effects of trauma. Here’s how:

1. Therapy: Treatments like trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) can help “rewire” the brain and reduce symptoms.

2. Mindfulness and relaxation techniques: Practices like meditation can help calm the amygdala and strengthen the prefrontal cortex.

3. Exercise: Physical activity can increase the size of the hippocampus and improve mood by releasing feel-good chemicals like endorphins.

Trauma changes the brain, but these changes don’t have to be permanent. Understanding how trauma affects the brain can help us be more compassionate toward ourselves and others who are struggling. With the right tools and support, healing is not only possible—it’s likely.

This article has been written by John S. Collier, MSW, LCSW. Mr. Collier has over 25 years experience in the social work field. He currently serves as the executive director in outpatient behavioral health therapist at Southeast Kentucky Behavioral health based out of London Kentucky. He may be reached by phone at 606-657-0532 extension 101 or by email at [email protected]

References

• Shin, L. M., Rauch, S. L., & Pitman, R. K. (2006). Amygdala, medial prefrontal cortex, and hippocampal function in PTSD. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1071(1), 67-79.

• Bremner, J. D. (2006). Traumatic stress: Effects on the brain. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(4), 445-461.

• van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma.