Do you personally know of a man who became a better husband as a result of his wife's

[coffeefreak]

ITA, CA Mom! I do personally know of a man who became a better husband, (mine) but he was NOT any of these things, coffeefreak, that you're now, lo these many pages, defining!

 

What I've been thinking was strange, coffeefreak, now becomes more clear. You put up a poll asking what seemed to me a straightforward question and the poll results were pretty straightforward as well. It's been neck-and-neck between people who say, "Yes, personally" and "No, evil myth", and that's without even factoring in "it could happen" responses. I kept wondering why you didn't seem to accept the results of your own poll. In one place, you wrote that you were curious about those for whom it seems to "work".

 

I think that speaks to the fallacy. Submission is not a technique you do to shape up a donkey's-rear of a husband. Personally, I would rather never marry such a man to begin with, but that is a whole 'nother post. If my husband was, by some unfortunately and wretched mistake, a man like that, I would not "try" submission in the hopes that he will have an epiphany and turn into a wonderful dude.

 

Someone along this thread said "We train others in how to treat us" or something to that effect. I don't think that poster was in favor of wifely submission, but I completely and totally agree with that statement. I've seen it unfold constantly in situations from work to marriages to child-rearing. I do believe in submission as I understand it, but I would simply never, ever, ever allow myself to be treated inhumanely. (Again. I did that in my teens with a boyfriend and thankfully learned better.) I would never "train" my husband to treat me bad and then hope he decides to treat me better if I speak up less.

 

The examples I see again and again here as to what submission is presupposed to look like make me crazy. I used to take the animals to the vet when they need it; it made sense because I am the one at home. But when I was half-mauled by our German Shepherd because he really, really didn't want anything to do with that rectal thermomenter :lol:, I told dh, "I need for you to do vet from now on. I'm not strong enough to restrain him and he clawed me badly." So, that was that! I didn't, in my submission, mousily keep my bruises to myself and struggle with the dog at the vet ever after, silently seething that it hurts and it's unbearable. Same with plenty of other things I could list. If something needs addressing, we address it. Just because I believe in wifely submission doesn't mean I never say anything about a situation that isn't working for me.

 

Anyway...I think it is a horse of an entirely different color to ask if wifely submission changed an abusive, disorderly, slothful, unloving, scab of a man into a king versus just asking if a dh has changed "for the better" because of wifely submission.

 

I thought it was pretty straightforward, but it did get hairy, didn't it? I have gladly gone off on the rabbit trails with everyone because it is an interesting, stimulating, educational discussion. Actually that comment you quoted was in response to one of those rabbit trails last night. Submission doesn't work to change anyone, much less a donkey's butt :D. I thought I explained that, when I said no, it doesn't change anyone for the better. Sorry if it came across that was the whole poll - that a man has to be a donkey's butt first.

 

The poll is actually originally from nolongerquivering.com, and I do accept the results. I find it fascinating that the results are neck in neck. I'm fascinated that there are so many "definitions" of submission, and I did not realize that other people have never heard some of the preaching that goes on regarding submission. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it and follow the rabbit trails, does it? If nothing else, what I get out of these discussions is an education. Thanks for participating!

 

Respectfully,

Dorinda

Edited November 19, 2009 by coffeefreak

[Joanne]

I can understand your POV about reading Created to be His Help Meet, if reading it requires you to do everything written in the book, but it does not. The way I approach a self help book, or a lifestyle book is with a grain of salt. I try to glean the good, and throw out the bad. I personally would not apply Titus 2:3-5 the way Debbie Pearl suggested with the repentant child molesting husband. That is the part of the book I throw out.

 

I can do this with sane, healthy, moderate viewpoints even if I disagree with some of what the authors say. Kevin Lehman as a parenting author, for example. The Love and Logic books and the Ilg and Ames "Your _____ Year Old" books are other ones. Many natural parenting and vaccine books fall into that category for me. Even some homeschooling books. ;)

 

But I find aspects of the Pearls' writings and thinking so abhorant that I can't respect *anything* they offer because of the paradigm from which their ideas emerge. I believe that anything of actual use in their books is found in other places.

 

To me, gleaning something from authors who support staying married to a known child molester or physical abuser is like saying "I read the Satanic Bible and gleaned the parts that are Godly."

[Joanne]

:iagree:

 

I don't understand how being submissive in my marriage means that I'm against women's rights. It doesn't mean that I think that women should give up the right to vote, etc. As for power...ask anyone who knows me if they think I'm powerless...chances are, they'd be laughing so hard that they wouldn't be able to speak ;) And that includes my dh.

 

I think how someone prefers to be addressed is just that. Preference. I fail to see how its symptomatic of a problem. Then again, I was happy to take my husband's last name. I was proud of being his wife, and that's how I saw/see it. ;) That his last name is waaaaaaay easier to spell/pronounce was a bonus.

 

Men and women ARE different. I'll tell you, without hesitation, that in an emergency, I'd much rather have a male police officer, a male firefighter come to my aid than a female. First off, the only tangible difference in a female officer and I is a gun. A male has a greater chance (imo) in a physical confrontation. As for a fire fighter...I doubt a female would be able to drag my unconscious fat butt out. :lol:

 

Oh, Imp, I have no doubt you have your equal say and adequate power. ;)

 

For me, though, women's issues and rights are far more complex than the right to vote, equal pay, etc. So much so that I sometimes wish I *could* adopt an extreme stand on the issue one way or another because the issues involved in evaluating a women's equality and power are so heavy.

[Rosie_0801]

For me, though, women's issues and rights are far more complex than the right to vote, equal pay, etc. So much so that I sometimes wish I *could* adopt an extreme stand on the issue one way or another because the issues involved in evaluating a women's equality and power are so heavy.

 

Lol. In my opinion a "real" feminist is just as heavy on men's rights. Having studied the beginnings of feminism in Australia, the difference between that and today's popular perception of it really grates on me. Nothing like the media to skew an issue.

 

Anyway, I think this thread is heavy enough without getting stuck into feminism!

 

Rosie

[OnTheBrink]

Lol. In my opinion a "real" feminist is just as heavy on men's rights. Having studied the beginnings of feminism in Australia, the difference between that and today's popular perception of it really grates on me. Nothing like the media to skew an issue.

 

Anyway, I think this thread is heavy enough without getting stuck into feminism!

 

Rosie

 

Oh, come on, Rosie! Walk on the wild side! LOL

[Lovedtodeath]

Loved your posts Rosie!

[Rosie_0801]

Oh, come on, Rosie! Walk on the wild side! LOL

 

Ok I will. I believe any woman who says she isn't a feminist mustn't know anything about the early feminists. Was that enough to get me banned from the board? :confused: :lol: Really, I can't speak for the American feminist movement, but many of the original suffragists here (we aren't supposed to call ours suffragettes, so I was told) were a bunch of good Christian women much like you lot. :)

 

Rosie- who sees advantages to the modern world. See, I can nick off like this :auto: instead of in a horse and cart, where you would surely catch me!

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Well, then Rosie, do enlighten us.

 

I keep hearing this argument, "but I DO give my husband my opinion!" That is not at issue here. If, in the end....you have to give in to his "authority",...."headship", whatever you call it, then, no, you are not equal. HIS authority/opinion/way is the rule.

 

 

I guess most of us are happy the way we live. Some are happy not having an equal voice (not being the one who has the ability to make the final decision). Some are happy being in an equal partnership.

[ciyates]

.

 

 

I guess most of us are happy the way we live. Some are happy not having an equal voice (not being the one who has the ability to make the final decision). Some are happy being in an equal partnership.

 

If my husband and I disagree on a matter somebody has to make a decision. According to your logic if I make the decision then he is submitting to me and he isn't the equal. There can only be one person steering the boat folks! Somebody has to have the final say. I like it when my husband and I are on the same page in the direction we want to go but when that doesn't happen I respect him enough to let him have the final say. I guess I am blessed to have a DH that is level headed, caring and loves me like the Bible tells him too. In my situation it is a lot easier to submit. However there is no such thing as an equal partnership. One person whomever it is has to be the final decision maker.

[Sasha]

On the contrary, women will be corulers with Christ. Ruling over men that are on the earth from the heavenly kingdom. It isn't about men being better. It is about different roles/responsibilities within certain arrangements (family, congregation).

With, unless I'm mistaken, men being the final authority for no other reason than because they are men.

[Sasha]

They are both equal in His eyes but not identical.

 

How can they be equal when one is given a responsibility based on gender that the other cannot fulfill?

 

Both might be valuable in the eyes of G-d (and I'm being theoretical, as I'm not Christian) but they cannot be equal. If they were equal one would become head of household based upon merit, not gender.

[DawnM]

This hasn't been the case in our marriage. Noone is heavy handed or the "final decision maker." We make sure we are on the same page in ALL major decisions.

 

DH wanted to move out of California about 4 years ago. I wasn't sure about it. We talked for over a year about it and when he was offered a job in NC the agreement was this: I knew I didn't feel comfortable completely with saying we are leaving CA for good. So, we agreed that we would give it two full years in NC before making any decisions. It has been 4 years, but I agreed to all of it because of several things (for example he needs 5 years at his current job to get fully vested in the retirement plan and I don't want to lose that), even though I would welcome a move back to CA and do hope that will happen some day.

 

The point is, we find something that will be mutually satisfying to both of us.....no heavy handedness needed. Compromises, trial periods of new things, agreement to change our minds later, making sure we are both praying about the issue at hand, etc.....ALL are part of an "equal" relationship.....noone gets his/her way all the time and you look out for the interest of the other person first.

 

Jim and I teach a class at church on Crown Financial. We have seen marriages heal many times in that class. One big thing Crown teaches is for partners to be completely honest in ALL aspects of their lives with each other. It is amazing what people keep from each other, from spending (the focus of the class, but it ends up spreading to other areas) to major decision making! Crown emphasises that women are a great sounding board for decisions and often bring a different perspective into the mix for better decisions to be made.

 

I could go on and on as this is a subject I am very passionate about (healthy marriages), but I will just add my .02 here.

 

Dawn

 

 

 

 

If my husband and I disagree on a matter somebody has to make a decision. According to your logic if I make the decision then he is submitting to me and he isn't the equal. There can only be one person steering the boat folks! Somebody has to have the final say. I like it when my husband and I are on the same page in the direction we want to go but when that doesn't happen I respect him enough to let him have the final say. I guess I am blessed to have a DH that is level headed, caring and loves me like the Bible tells him too. In my situation it is a lot easier to submit. However there is no such thing as an equal partnership. One person whomever it is has to be the final decision maker.

[katemary63]

If my husband and I disagree on a matter somebody has to make a decision. According to your logic if I make the decision then he is submitting to me and he isn't the equal. There can only be one person steering the boat folks! Somebody has to have the final say. I like it when my husband and I are on the same page in the direction we want to go but when that doesn't happen I respect him enough to let him have the final say. I guess I am blessed to have a DH that is level headed, caring and loves me like the Bible tells him too. In my situation it is a lot easier to submit. However there is no such thing as an equal partnership. One person whomever it is has to be the final decision maker.

 

:iagree: Exactly

[Erica in PA]

How can they be equal when one is given a responsibility based on gender that the other cannot fulfill?

 

Both might be valuable in the eyes of G-d (and I'm being theoretical, as I'm not Christian) but they cannot be equal. If they were equal one would become head of household based upon merit, not gender.

 

Taking a turn trying here...Equal in our society has come to mean something different than it does with God. To us, it means "the same." It means women can do everything that men can do, and just as well if not better. That is not what is being discussed here. Instead, it means just as valuable. God has given men and women different roles to fulfill, and though they are different from each other, they are equally valuable to God. God doesn't view a man's leadership in a home as being more valuable than a woman's nurturing care and support.

 

Imo, the fact that gender being involved bugs some people is not a reflection of actual unfairness on God's part, but because we have been strongly programmed to believe that there is *no difference* between the genders for the past 30 years. Not only that men are not better than women, which the Bible supports, but that there is no difference at all between the two, which it does not.

[angela in ohio]

Douglas Phillips of Vision Forum is the one I was thinking of.

 

There's one thing we can agree on. ;) (I really like the Wilsons, as I can look past a bit of theological disagreement, and I think it is unfortunate that they are both named Doug and get mixed up.)

[Marylou]

I should never read these threads. It hurts my heart that so many women think it is necessary to subject themselves to the lower role, to be told what to do by their husbands. (And before I hear, "we aren't told what to do" and "I'm no doormat" one more time...Uh, if you don't have EQUAL say, then, yes, you are a doormat, if not Doormat Adjacent.)

 

 

And, really, to the christians who state, "this is what the bible says and that is that" your belief/sentiment is part of exactly why many will NOT be christians. It makes NO sense whatsoever for a man to have more power in the relationship just because he is in possession of a penis!

 

"

 

I don't think you realize how insulting this (bold parts) is to Christians whose entire religion is based on Christ as our example of submission and humility.

 

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing,

taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

and became obedient to death—

even death on a cross!" From Philippians 2

 

 

Imo, the fact that gender being involved bugs some people is not a reflection of actual unfairness on God's part, but because we have been strongly programmed to believe that there is *no difference* between the genders for the past 30 years. Not only that men are not better than women, which the Bible supports, but that there is no difference at all between the two, which it does not.

 

I agree.

[hornblower]

However there is no such thing as an equal partnership. One person whomever it is has to be the final decision maker.

 

I disagree. I think you can have an equal partnership - I have one.

 

I also think you're taking a very limited, narrow approach to decision making. Decisions can be made in a variety of ways; consensus building is one. There doesn't have to be one decision maker - and even if there is a decision that has to be made right now, right this moment & there's no time for negotiation or discussion or anything, it doesn't follow that the man has to be the decision maker. This is the logical fallacy that is the root of this debate IMO.

 

Dh & I really rarely have disagreements on what to do next. Sometimes we're both undecided and we both just need to think for a long time, but mostly we know what we want to do with big issues. I don't even know how we arrive at decisions honestly. We just talk talk talk about it, we can usually both argue all sides of the issue, there's a lot of "on the other hand" and "what do you think?" and then somehow we arrive at a decision.

 

For some things we mostly follow what an old LLL Leader I know calls the SME model. SME stands for "subject matter expert". On any given issue in a marriage (actually I'd extend that to family as a whole) there is usually one person who has taken an interest in a subject, researched it, thought about it, considered it - either due to inherent interest or simply because it came up and someone had to do it. The SME will present evidence to the other family members & suggest a course of action. If others disagree, the SME is obligated to discuss & explain & perhaps research further issues raised by the others. But eventually the SME is the 'buck stops here' person for that topic. If others want to research it as fully & debate the issue with the SME, then they're free to.

 

In a marriage built on trust, mutual understanding, and common goals, there's usually no reason to challenge the SME. Who is the SME on various issues in our marriage btw shifts over time. For instance, dh used to be the computer SME but is no longer (due to lack of time and interest).

 

I suppose where we'd have problems is if we both felt we were SME's on something and had completely opposing views on an issue. That's just never come up for us. Perhaps it goes back to the "marriage built on trust, mutual understanding, and common goals". And maybe also "don't sweat the small stuff".

 

I do occasionally like to point out that things would run smoother if everyone just accepted me as benevolent dictator (dictatorships are SO efficient!) ...... but that's my view of the world as a whole, not just my family. :tongue_smilie:

[Joanne]

If my husband and I disagree on a matter somebody has to make a decision. According to your logic if I make the decision then he is submitting to me and he isn't the equal. There can only be one person steering the boat folks! Somebody has to have the final say.

 

It's that designating one person as the final say = not equal. If the spouses both have an opportunity to have the final decision, final say, it's equal.

 

If the man has the default say in the event of an impasse, he has more power based on nothing more than he is a man.

 

I do not believe that in a marriage, a designated person must "be the leader". Operating as a marital unit is a shared, equal, mutual function.

[OnTheBrink]

It's that designating one person as the final say = not equal. If the spouses both have an opportunity to have the final decision, final say, it's equal.

 

If the man has the default say in the event of an impasse, he has more power based on nothing more than he is a man.

 

I do not believe that in a marriage, a designated person must "be the leader". Operating as a marital unit is a shared, equal, mutual function.

 

What happens when both spouses are at opposite view points in an issue where a compromise doesn't work? Who gets the final say?

[Scarlett]

What happens when both spouses are at opposite view points in an issue where a compromise doesn't work? Who gets the final say?

 

I'd like to know this too.

[freetobeme]

where is the scripture that says the man gets the final say in every decision?

[DawnM]

Don't know, we haven't had that issue. I am not saying we never will, but I can assure you that there is a reason I waited until age 29 to marry.....I wanted to marry the right person for the right reasons and with the same values and ideology as I had.

 

Dh would never make a decision without consulting me first and I would never deny him something like a better job opportunity he felt strongly about, etc.....

 

Dawn

 

What happens when both spouses are at opposite view points in an issue where a compromise doesn't work? Who gets the final say?

[Scarlett]

where is the scripture that says the man gets the final say in every decision?

 

It is the headship principle. Eph 5 and 6

 

21*Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22*Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23*because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body. 24*In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything. 25*Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it, 26*that he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word, 27*that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor, not having a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28*In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29*for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, 30*because we are members of his body. 31*“For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.†32*This sacred secret is great. Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation. 33*Nevertheless, also, let each one of YOU individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.

6 Children, be obedient to YOUR parents in union with [the] Lord, for this is righteous: 2*“Honor your father and [your] motherâ€; which is the first command with a promise: 3*“That it may go well with you and you may endure a long time on the earth.†4*And YOU, fathers, do not be irritating YOUR children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah."

 

This is hardly a tyrannical system. If a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the congregation....seems to me it would all work just fine. Now if a man wants to take these scriptures and twist them for his own selfish means...that is a problem with the man, not the principle.

[Scarlett]

where is the scripture that says the man gets the final say in every decision?

 

I believe the wording of your question is prejudicial. Prov 31 describes a capable wife....certainly doesn't call up an image of some beaten down wife who has to ask her husband's permission for every small detail in running a house.

[Scarlett]

Don't know, we haven't had that issue. I am not saying we never will, but I can assure you that there is a reason I waited until age 29 to marry.....I wanted to marry the right person for the right reasons and with the same values and ideology as I had.

 

Dh would never make a decision without consulting me first and I would never deny him something like a better job opportunity he felt strongly about, etc.....

 

Dawn

 

A perfect example of a union that works. And a good case for not marrying too young. Like Scarlett did. ;)

[Joanne]

What happens when both spouses are at opposite view points in an issue where a compromise doesn't work? Who gets the final say?

 

It depends on the situation; it's situation specific. What I don't believe in (and what I don't see scriptural support for) is having the husband have the default or assumed final say in the case of an impasse.

 

I'll grant that there may be situations where compromise isn't possible (circumcision of my sons was one of those in my former marriage). I just don't agree that the default decision maker is necessary or Biblical. I think the "final say" and "husband decides" is *extra*Biblical.

[freetobeme]

I believe the wording of your question is prejudicial. Prov 31 describes a capable wife....certainly doesn't call up an image of some beaten down wife who has to ask her husband's permission for every small detail in running a house.

 

it was actually an honest question. trying to work out my own issues. i was asked to leave my church because i couldn't live under the ephesians principle as it was being taught. i am just seeking truth. that's all.

[*********]

What happens when both spouses are at opposite view points in an issue where a compromise doesn't work? Who gets the final say?

 

Michelle, I think you've got a good question there. And in my marriage, the answer is my husband.

 

And yes, this happens. Not often, but it does happen. Sometimes I feel one way and dh feels another on a particular issue. And so, if a decision must be made, and we cannot agree, then yes, my husband decides. Why? Why my dh and not me? Well I'll tell you why.

 

Because the Bible says in Ephesians 5:

 

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

 

Because the Bible says my husband is the head of me. Period. It says that. Now, some may chose to ignore that, or 'understand it' differently. And it's not exactly like the world supports that model for a marriage, now does it? Biblical submission is not a popular cause. But here's what the Word says about what the world thinks:

 

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. - 1 Cor. 1:18

 

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. - Proverbs 14:12

 

And no, that doesn't mean my dh tells me what to do all the time, or doesn't consider my opinion as important as his own. My dh is not abusive, controlling, or disrespectful. He strives to love me the way Christ loves the church. And if I may say so, he does a pretty awesome job.

 

As I have purposed to live in submission to my husband, as well as the Lord, fantastic things have taken place in my marriage. Not because of anything *I did; but simply because the Lord has blessed our following of biblical headship: God, Christ, husband, wife, children. In that order.

 

Take the example the Lord gives us in Matthew 26, where Christ prays in the Garden:

 

36 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while I go and pray over there.†37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. 38 Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.â€

39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.â€

Christ is equal to God the Father; however, he chooses to submit his will to that of the Father. And what a wonderful example to follow in a Christian marriage.

[freetobeme]

It depends on the situation; it's situation specific. What I don't believe in (and what I don't see scriptural support for) is having the husband have the default or assumed final say in the case of an impasse.

 

I'll grant that there may be situations where compromise isn't possible (circumcision of my sons was one of those in my former marriage). I just don't agree that the default decision maker is necessary or Biblical. I think the "final say" and "husband decides" is *extra*Biblical.

 

see, this makes sense to me. and i really am seeking the Truth, not just my own version to fit my situation.

[*********]

It depends on the situation; it's situation specific. What I don't believe in (and what I don't see scriptural support for) is having the husband have the default or assumed final say in the case of an impasse.

 

I'll grant that there may be situations where compromise isn't possible (circumcision of my sons was one of those in my former marriage). I just don't agree that the default decision maker is necessary or Biblical. I think the "final say" and "husband decides" is *extra*Biblical.

 

Ok Joanne, but you didn't really answer Michelle's question.

 

So, it's 'situation specific'. Still, how do you and your husband decide who gets the final say? What if you both feel just as strongly in your opposite convictions?

 

Let's use circumcision as an example; it's a good example, because there is no 'compromise'. It's either yes or no.

 

So say I had a baby boy, and did not want to circumcise him. I spoke with my dh about it, gave him all the information and reasoning as to my opinion. However, my dh felt just as strongly that we *should circumcise our son. We could not come to an agreement. We prayed about it, spoke about it, perhaps we even argued about it a little (not that *that ever happens :D). We still don't agree. We still have to make a decision.

 

How do we decide who gets to be the final word in this sitaution? In *any situation, for that matter? What is your standard for deciding who gets to have the final word in each situation?

 

I'm very curious how others do this. 'Cause with me and my dh, the Bible is our standard, and we believe it says the the husband is to lead the wife. And we therefore interpret this to mean that if we reach an impasse, my dh will be the final word.

[Sasha]

It depends on the situation; it's situation specific. What I don't believe in (and what I don't see scriptural support for) is having the husband have the default or assumed final say in the case of an impasse.

 

I'll grant that there may be situations where compromise isn't possible (circumcision of my sons was one of those in my former marriage). I just don't agree that the default decision maker is necessary or Biblical. I think the "final say" and "husband decides" is *extra*Biblical.

 

This exactly. There have been a few times where one of us has put our foot down and said, "This is important to me and I will not compromise on this." It's been very few and whoever has said it has always had good reason for saying it.

[Scarlett]

it was actually an honest question. trying to work out my own issues. i was asked to leave my church because i couldn't live under the ephesians principle as it was being taught. i am just seeking truth. that's all.

 

Oh, I wasn't accusing YOU of not being honest. I was just saying that often when the issue is put in such a way it makes our (women in general) spines bristle to think of being 'controlled' in such a way.

 

I probably missed this in this looooong thread...but what exactly did you want to do, as a wife, that would cause that church to kick you out? That seems...extreme. And the headship principle doesn't get thrown out just because humans have perverted it.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Scarlett
spelling

[Scarlett]

Ok Joanne, but you didn't really answer Michelle's question.

 

So, it's 'situation specific'. Still, how do you and your husband decide who gets the final say? What if you both feel just as strongly in your opposite convictions?

 

Let's use circumcision as an example; it's a good example, because there is no 'compromise'. It's either yes or no.

 

So say I had a baby boy, and did not want to circumcise him. I spoke with my dh about it, gave him all the information and reasoning as to my opinion. However, my dh felt just as strongly that we *should circumcise our son. We could not come to an agreement. We prayed about it, spoke about it, perhaps we even argued about it a little (not that *that ever happens :D). We still don't agree. We still have to make a decision.

 

How do we decide who gets to be the final word in this sitaution? In *any situation, for that matter? What is your standard for deciding who gets to have the final word in each situation?

 

I'm very curious how others do this. 'Cause with me and my dh, the Bible is our standard, and we believe it says the the husband is to lead the wife. And we therefore interpret this to mean that if we reach an impasse, my dh will be the final word.

 

I'm curious too.

[*********]

And the headship principle doesn't get thrown out just because humans have perverted it.

 

This.

 

Virtual high five, Scarlett. Couldn't agree more. :)

Edited November 19, 2009 by bethanyniez

[Scarlett]

This.

 

Virtual high five, Scarlett. Couldn't agree more. :)

 

Thanks. And priniciple. I hate when I make that spelling error.

[Sasha]

Using circumcision as an example--

 

Dh is circumcised, as are other males in both of our families. We live in the Midwest in conventional families and it's just the way it is done. Then when I learned we were having boys I did research and became absolutely certain that I would not allow it to be done. Period. No compromise.

 

My dh at first argued the normal pro-circ'ing types of things--our boys might look different in the locker room. That kind of argument held up next to mine--that it's a human rights issue, was pretty weak. He then watched a video of a circ procedure and became adamently anti-circ.

 

For another example--I wanted to have a home birth. DH was worried about safety. I did my research, he did his. I could show him research supporting my side, he could not. We had a homebirth.

[Scarlett]

Using circumcision as an example--

 

Dh is circumcised, as are other males in both of our families. We live in the Midwest in conventional families and it's just the way it is done. Then when I learned we were having boys I did research and became absolutely certain that I would not allow it to be done. Period. No compromise.

 

My dh at first argued the normal pro-circ'ing types of things--our boys might look different in the locker room. That kind of argument held up next to mine--that it's a human rights issue, was pretty weak. He then watched a video of a circ procedure and became adamently anti-circ.

 

For another example--I wanted to have a home birth. DH was worried about safety. I did my research, he did his. I could show him research supporting my side, he could not. We had a homebirth.

 

Your dh was persuaded. He sounds reasonable. He sounds as if he trusts you to be a capable wife.

[*********]

Using circumcision as an example--

 

Dh is circumcised, as are other males in both of our families. We live in the Midwest in conventional families and it's just the way it is done. Then when I learned we were having boys I did research and became absolutely certain that I would not allow it to be done. Period. No compromise.

 

My dh at first argued the normal pro-circ'ing types of things--our boys might look different in the locker room. That kind of argument held up next to mine--that it's a human rights issue, was pretty weak. He then watched a video of a circ procedure and became adamently anti-circ.

 

Yes, I understand that a husband and wife can adamantly disagree on something, but in the end, come to an agreement. Just as you and your husband did in this example. And yes, this happens in my marriage, too.

 

My question was not 'how do you come to an agreement with your spouse', it was how do you decide who gets the final say when you simply cannot agree.

[Scarlett]

Yes, I understand that a husband and wife can adamantly disagree on something, but in the end, come to an agreement. Just as you and your husband did in this example. And yes, this happens in my marriage, too.

 

My question was not 'how do you come to an agreement with your spouse', it was how do you decide who gets the final say when you simply cannot agree.

 

In a good marriage, this probably rarely happens. I'm hoping for a good marriage someday. :D

 

Remember my big old issue with stbx over homeschooling? Up next to my reasons for homeschooling I thought his reasons for NOT were pathetic. It absolutely made me sick to think I had to do it his way. I bit my tongue, swallowed my pride and told him , 'I do not agree with you at all on this issue, but if you are going to insist on it I will go along with it.' I prayed about it, A LOT. Oddly enough within a month or so of me telling stbx that I would agree to send ds to school this fall, I discovered he was having an affair. Suddenly, I no longer had to do it his way! Wow, was that a relief! Full custody allows me all decision making power.....ha ha.

 

I am probably not making my case for the headship principle am I? :tongue_smilie: Except I am. My stbx didn't love me as his own body. He was a terrible husband. Abusive in many ways, unreasonable in many ways. That is NOT the headship principle in action.

 

I always struggled....because God's will comes first over a husband's. I would have jerked my son out of public school in two seconds if I felt he was in any sort of danger.

 

The thing is...the Headship principle STARTS with the husband. If he does his part it is easy. I've seen it in action.

[OnTheBrink]

This exactly. There have been a few times where one of us has put our foot down and said, "This is important to me and I will not compromise on this." It's been very few and whoever has said it has always had good reason for saying it.

 

Ok, so then that's not an "equal" marriage. One person is enforcing their choice over another. Unless you keep some sort of score card and make sure that if you put your foot down this time, your dh gets to put his down some other time, then there is not equality here. I'm not judging you or your marriage, I'm saying that it's not "equal."

[*********]

The thing is...the Headship principle STARTS with the husband. If he does his part it is easy. I've seen it in action.

 

I get what you're saying here, Scarlett. It is soooo much easier for me to submit to my husband when I feel he's loving me as Christ loves the church.

 

But.

 

The Headship principle actually starts with God the Father, then Jesus, *then the husband. In submitting to my husband, I am also submitting to God and Christ.

 

Even if my husband never ever loved me the right way; even if my husband was not saved; even then I am called to submit to him.

 

My responsibility is to the Lord, and living the way I believe the Bible instructs me to. I don't want to be asked 'why didn't you live in submission to your husband?' and say 'well Lord, he wasn't always nice, he didn't always love me perfectly, and sometimes I didn't get my way!'.

 

Yes, I fully agree that when a husband is fulfilling his part in a biblical, Godly way, it is much easier for a wife to do the same. However, we are not called to submit 'when it's easy', or 'when the other party is doing right'. We are called to submit. Just as we are called to fulfill many, *many other things in scripture, without making that obedience dependent on how others are doing.

[OnTheBrink]

It depends on the situation; it's situation specific. What I don't believe in (and what I don't see scriptural support for) is having the husband have the default or assumed final say in the case of an impasse.

 

I'll grant that there may be situations where compromise isn't possible (circumcision of my sons was one of those in my former marriage). I just don't agree that the default decision maker is necessary or Biblical. I think the "final say" and "husband decides" is *extra*Biblical.

 

You might not like it or agree with it, or want to call it "cultural" but here it is:

 

Ephesians 5:

 

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

[Crimson Wife]

For some things we mostly follow what an old LLL Leader I know calls the SME model. SME stands for "subject matter expert". On any given issue in a marriage (actually I'd extend that to family as a whole) there is usually one person who has taken an interest in a subject, researched it, thought about it, considered it - either due to inherent interest or simply because it came up and someone had to do it. The SME will present evidence to the other family members & suggest a course of action. If others disagree, the SME is obligated to discuss & explain & perhaps research further issues raised by the others. But eventually the SME is the 'buck stops here' person for that topic.

 

Except for the last line, that sounds like my marriage. There are any number of things that I function as the SME on, and my DH appreciates that I do this. He doesn't have the time or the inclination to be the "buck stops here" guy on every single little thing. He trusts my judgment and has never tried to micromanage the household.

 

But at the end of the day if there is a disagreement that cannot be resolved, his role is to be the quarterback.

[freetobeme]

some men to not have the ability or want-to to lead their families. when a woman goes to her church and is told to respect more and he will love you and lead you and you know he won't. . .because he hasn't. . .and then all the problems are your fault or at least stem from your "inability" to submit.

 

i've learned a lot from this thread. i have more to learn. thanks to all of you who have shared. we all see things so differently and i appreciate that about this forum. i love the challenge and growth possible from looking at ideas from sometimes very foreign viewpoints.

 

i hope one day this side of heaven to have a better grasp of this whole thing minus the way man has twisted the issue!

[Scarlett]

I get what you're saying here, Scarlett. It is soooo much easier for me to submit to my husband when I feel he's loving me as Christ loves the church.

 

But.

 

The Headship principle actually starts with God the Father, then Jesus, *then the husband. In submitting to my husband, I am also submitting to God and Christ.

 

Even if my husband never ever loved me the right way; even if my husband was not saved; even then I am called to submit to him.

 

My responsibility is to the Lord, and living the way I believe the Bible instructs me to. I don't want to be asked 'why didn't you live in submission to your husband?' and say 'well Lord, he wasn't always nice, he didn't always love me perfectly, and sometimes I didn't get my way!'.

 

Yes, I fully agree that when a husband is fulfilling his part in a biblical, Godly way, it is much easier for a wife to do the same. However, we are not called to submit 'when it's easy', or 'when the other party is doing right'. We are called to submit. Just as we are called to fulfill many, *many other things in scripture, without making that obedience dependent on how others are doing.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with any of this. I was just making the point that the headship principle isn't JUST about the wife submitting to her husband. That seems to be all anyone focuses on. And of course I know it starts with God and our submission there...I was just talking about between husband and wife.

 

And I totally agree that we are required to submit even when our husbands aren't nice. However, enough of that and a woman's spirit can be so broken that she may not can live with him any more. Maybe not obtain a scriptural divorce, but nonetheless be forced to leave him to maintain her sanity. I've seen that happen too.

[Scarlett]

some men to not have the ability or want-to to lead their families.

 

It really isn't an option. He is required to lead his family. Not sure how it would be your fault if he didn't though.

 

I'm not sure how that would work exactly...that he doesn't want to lead his family....in practice what does that mean? Just that he trusts you as a capable wife to manage the day to day things? Or that he won't work to support you? I can't really picture this.

[lionfamily1999]

It is the headship principle. Eph 5 and 6

 

21*Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22*Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23*because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body. 24*In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything. 25*Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it, 26*that he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word, 27*that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor, not having a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28*In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, 29*for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it, as the Christ also does the congregation, 30*because we are members of his body. 31*“For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.†32*This sacred secret is great. Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation. 33*Nevertheless, also, let each one of YOU individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.

6 Children, be obedient to YOUR parents in union with [the] Lord, for this is righteous: 2*“Honor your father and [your] motherâ€; which is the first command with a promise: 3*“That it may go well with you and you may endure a long time on the earth.†4*And YOU, fathers, do not be irritating YOUR children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah."

 

This is hardly a tyrannical system. If a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the congregation....seems to me it would all work just fine. Now if a man wants to take these scriptures and twist them for his own selfish means...that is a problem with the man, not the principle.

Especially when you take into account that Christ came to serve as much as to lead. I think that gets forgotten. If you want to be the greatest, you must be the least. There is a lot of balance in Biblical submission. A husband does not lord it over his wife, just as Christ does not lord it over the church (lol @ the pun). Christ serves the church, the same that the church serves Christ. Without Christ there would be no church, without him serving the church, the church would fail. For the husband to be the head, he must also serve. I would put this with the 'mysteries' that those with ears can hear and eyes can see, iykwIm.

some men to not have the ability or want-to to lead their families. when a woman goes to her church and is told to respect more and he will love you and lead you and you know he won't. . .because he hasn't. . .and then all the problems are your fault or at least stem from your "inability" to submit.

 

i've learned a lot from this thread. i have more to learn. thanks to all of you who have shared. we all see things so differently and i appreciate that about this forum. i love the challenge and growth possible from looking at ideas from sometimes very foreign viewpoints.

 

i hope one day this side of heaven to have a better grasp of this whole thing minus the way man has twisted the issue!

:grouphug: It's just as hard for the husband as it is for the wife. At first, trying to just get the go ahead from dh on some of the most trivial things was like pulling teeth! I needed to know he was on board, though, and not just because he didn't want to argue. It took awhile ;)

 

What's incredible is the difference as they learn to lead.

[freetobeme]

It really isn't an option. He is required to lead his family. Not sure how it would be your fault if he didn't though.

 

I'm not sure how that would work exactly...that he doesn't want to lead his family....in practice what does that mean? Just that he trusts you as a capable wife to manage the day to day things? Or that he won't work to support you? I can't really picture this.

 

i don't know how to explain it clearly enough. just extreme passivity, i guess. unreliability, i guess. at some point, i just asked the church what i needed to do if he wouldn't lead (and he was present) - i was told that wasn't an option and there would be no conversation. i just had to let him lead.

oh, well. . .i can just say from reading your posts of past, you are a stronger woman than i.

[Joanne]

Ok, so then that's not an "equal" marriage. One person is enforcing their choice over another. Unless you keep some sort of score card and make sure that if you put your foot down this time, your dh gets to put his down some other time, then there is not equality here. I'm not judging you or your marriage, I'm saying that it's not "equal."

 

Score card? There is no score card. No need.

 

Having an equal say, equal decision making, and approaching the issues without a "default leader in the event of a tie" IS equal.:confused:

 

Equal chance, equal footing, equal ability to have impasse decisions be made by either spouse does not mean the decisions will happen 50% his turn 50% her turn.

 

It means that we NEVER approach such a situation with a default deference to DH's decision if an agreement can't be reached.

 

And, you're absolutely right, I see the rhetoric around it all that "someone must be the leader" to be cultural rather than Biblical.

 

I see that you don't agree with me from a practical or (your understanding of) Biblical viewpoint. What I don't understand is how you can not get the idea that no one "needs" to have the default final say. :001_huh:

 

As I've shared, there was ONE issue in my 15 year former marriage where this was the case, and it was not an easy marriage by any means. There has not been a situation under this category yet in my current marriage.

[Renee in NC]

It really isn't an option. He is required to lead his family. Not sure how it would be your fault if he didn't though.

 

I'm not sure how that would work exactly...that he doesn't want to lead his family....in practice what does that mean? Just that he trusts you as a capable wife to manage the day to day things? Or that he won't work to support you? I can't really picture this.

 

I imagine that he won't do anything at all. Some men refuse to make any decisions. No decision is still a decision, but at what cost?

 

Let me make up a scenario:

 

The husband loses a job that he has had forever. The family has some savings and the wife does the actual paying of bills. She asks him what he wants to do about the bills as the savings dwindles down. He says he doesn't know. He can't find a job locally, so really needs to look elsewhere, or find a different field, etc., but he doesn't.

 

Time passes. There is no longer enough money to pay the bills, so she asks him again, explaining the situation. He again says he doesn't know and continues looking for a job in his industry locally (which doesn't exist anymore.)

 

The power gets cutoff because there is no money. She asks him what she should do. He says he doesn't know. The power stays off?

 

That's kind of what "refusing to lead" seems to me. I would imagine that the wife would have to do *something* to remedy the situation if her dh doesn't.

 

This could apply to all kinds of scenarios.