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

[freetobeme]

for the record, he has held a job all these years. i guess that is something.

[CAMom]

 

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

 

 

 

So, Joanne, how do you see the passage that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church? What does that mean in practical outworking?

 

Submission is not simply about a wife deferring to her husband in decision making. It seems like that's what everyone always wants it to boil down to.

[Scarlett]

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.

 

I know what I would do! Kick him to the curb and get a job to support my kids! The scenario you descibed is actually one that is specifically addressed in my faith. That would be Willful Non Support. 'Submission' doesn't extend to a point where your family is in danger of not being fed or sheltered. This is how the principle has been perverted.

 

And yes, if the husband won't do what he is suppose to than the wife must. For instance a husband is responsible to lead the family spiritually....if he doesn't teach the children about God, it falls to the wife. He is still responsible...he has to answer to God for not doing his job...but the wife certainly can and should instill spirituality in her children.

[Scarlett]

So, Joanne, how do you see the passage that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church? What does that mean in practical outworking?

 

Submission is not simply about a wife deferring to her husband in decision making. It seems like that's what everyone always wants it to boil down to.

 

Yes this. And I think Joanne has seen enough of that portion of it twisted that she is totally turned off by the notion and the concept. She has said before she finds the teaching dangerous. I agree that the twisted version can be.

[Lovedtodeath]

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God."

 

Okay, I have an example of submitting to my husband. I have a virus and I was having trouble breathing. I called DH and asked him to stop at the health food store and pick up oil of oregano and colloidal silver. He said "I want you to go to the doctor." I argued, of course, that I had treated illness with these things before and I had a feeling that the doctor would be a waste of money. He said, "Please, just do it my way." I went to the doctor. It is a virus. If it is not better by Friday, she will put me on antibiotics because chances are it will have a secondary infection at that point. Did I tell DH that it was indeed a virus, the doctor did nothing and "I told you so?" No. I told my DH that I appreciated his concern for my health and left it at that.

 

Does he control everything I do? No. I go to the Natural Doctor for my chronic condition that becomes life threatening without treatment. I made that decision. I also took my son to the ND for his food allergies that seem to have been triggered by a terrible reaction to vaccines. I make almost all of the decisions about health matters for our family and things like clothing and food allowance, and what to teach in homeschool. Why? Because I am more informed on those matters.

 

DH takes care of the finances and pays the bills. I used to but when I started doing the accounting at work, I was sick of it at home and he took over. DH called me one day and told me to clean up the car. I told him I would. He called me back later and asked if it was done, and to get everyone ready to go. Why? "I am buying you a new car." I thought about it and told him not to waste our money on a car payment. It really wasn't needed. He agreed that I was right. We didn't buy the car.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Crimson Wife]

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.

 

Where is the family's pastor, family, & friends in this situation? I know that if I were witnessing this happening to someone I knew, I would tell my DH about it & he would go try to talk some sense into the husband. Scripture is pretty clear about the responsibility Christians have towards each other in this regard (c.f. 1 Timothy 5:20)

[Scarlett]

Where is the family's pastor, family, & friends in this situation? I know that if I were witnessing this happening to someone I knew, I would tell my DH about it & he would go try to talk some sense into the husband. Scripture is pretty clear about the responsibility Christians have towards each other in this regard (c.f. 1 Timothy 5:20)

 

Yes this too. But it is possible the husband is non practicing.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Yes this too. But it is possible the husband is non practicing.

Which is the biggest example of a husband not taking the lead in his family. It is more difficult for the wife to deal with if the husband appears to be practicing, but still doesn't take the lead. (Not that I would know. ;)) It is up to the wife to have a Bible study and to get her family motivated to go to the meetings.

[Joanne]

So, Joanne, how do you see the passage that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church? What does that mean in practical outworking?

 

Submission is not simply about a wife deferring to her husband in decision making. It seems like that's what everyone always wants it to boil down to.

 

About the bold: A person can totally understand, respect and "get" what extreme, moderate and mild versions of wife only submission are and still disagree. The fact that I disagree with wife ONLY submission does not mean I have a skewed or inaccurate understanding of how it functions. It does not mean I've simplified it or that I believe it's function is always heavily weighted, oppressive or that the female does not get respect, time, influence, etc.

 

I GET IT. I still disagree. ;)

 

As for the passage, any alternate understandings, articles, sites and ideas I would have would be immediately deemed unscriptural, unbiblical, "stretching", bad exegesis, etc simply because they *don't* approach it from the same perspective as current Christian culture.

[Lovedtodeath]

Here are some great articles on the topic. The first was is exceptional.

 

What Does Headship in Marriage Really Mean?

 

When Marital Disagreements Arise

 

Man and Woman--A Dignified Role for Each

[Joanne]

Okay, I have an example of submitting to my husband. I have a virus and I was having trouble breathing. I called DH and asked him to stop at the health food store and pick up oil of oregano and colloidal silver. He said "I want you to go to the doctor." I argued, of course, that I had treated illness with these things before and I had a feeling that the doctor would be a waste of money. He said, "Please, just do it my way." I went to the doctor. It is a virus. If it is not better by Friday, she will put me on antibiotics because chances are it will have a secondary infection at that point. Did I tell DH that it was indeed a virus, the doctor did nothing and "I told you so?" No. I told my DH that I appreciated his concern for my health and left it at that.

 

I'm glad you got the medical help you needed, that your DH loved you enough to say so and you respected him enough to submit.

 

The paragraph you wrote could easily happen here - and has. Only the genders could represent either party.

 

I'm not anti-submission. I'm pro MUTUAL submission.

[Lovedtodeath]

The paragraph you wrote could easily happen here - and has. Only the genders could represent either party.

LOL, that is actually true here as well. :001_huh:

[Lovedtodeath]

Eliana, I really appreciate your involvement in these discussions.

[CAMom]

About the bold: A person can totally understand, respect and "get" what extreme, moderate and mild versions of wife only submission are and still disagree. The fact that I disagree with wife ONLY submission does not mean I have a skewed or inaccurate understanding of how it functions. It does not mean I've simplified it or that I believe it's function is always heavily weighted, oppressive or that the female does not get respect, time, influence, etc.

 

I GET IT. I still disagree. ;)

 

As for the passage, any alternate understandings, articles, sites and ideas I would have would be immediately deemed unscriptural, unbiblical, "stretching", bad exegesis, etc simply because they *don't* approach it from the same perspective as current Christian culture.

 

Fair enough. The reason I asked is because if it is "cultural" for the husband to be the head of the wife, is it also "cultural" for Christ to be the head of the Church?

 

If not, then, I'm curious as the definition of what "head" means? Do Christ and the church engage in mutual submission? Do they have an equal share of authority?

 

Yes, I totally agree that Christ serves the Church sacrificially but does He ever submit to her?

 

My questions are genuine and coming from a place of always wanting to understand. I try to maintain an open enough mind for it to be changed when warranted as well.

[Crimson Wife]

it is possible the husband is non practicing.

 

Well, my DH would probably go talk to the guy regardless. He just would make a secular rather than a Christian argument.

[*********]

Fair enough. The reason I asked is because if it is "cultural" for the husband to be the head of the wife, is it also "cultural" for Christ to be the head of the Church?

 

If not, then, I'm curious as the definition of what "head" means? Do Christ and the church engage in mutual submission? Do they have an equal share of authority?

 

Yes, I totally agree that Christ serves the Church sacrificially but does He ever submit to her?

 

Ronette, these are some great insights.

 

No, Christ does not submit to the church, ever. But as you pointed out, Christ serves the church sacrificially; clearly, he gave the ultimate sacrifice for his bride, the church. But all the while, he was/is still the head, and the church was/is still in submission to him.

 

How wonderful that our Savior would show us such an example to follow in our marriages. :001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

Fair enough. The reason I asked is because if it is "cultural" for the husband to be the head of the wife, is it also "cultural" for Christ to be the head of the Church?

 

If not, then, I'm curious as the definition of what "head" means? Do Christ and the church engage in mutual submission? Do they have an equal share of authority?

 

Yes, I totally agree that Christ serves the Church sacrificially but does He ever submit to her?

 

My questions are genuine and coming from a place of always wanting to understand. I try to maintain an open enough mind for it to be changed when warranted as well.

Wonderful post!

[*********]

There is a significant difference between saying that a certain framework is G-d's plan for Xtian marriages and saying that all marriages have to have a leader.

 

Does that make sense?

 

In the first case, the discussion revolves around interpretation of Xtian scriptures and is a religious issue for Xtians.

 

The second case is a sweeping assertion about all marriages, Xtian or not, and is not (that I can see) based on anybody's scriptures, it is an assertion about how relationships have to be to work.

 

Occasionally a poster references Adam and Chava (Eve) (I'll quote my, very brief response to that below); in this thread someone referenced Sarah Immeinu - which didn't make sense to me since when Avraham and Sarah had a fundamental disagreement about what to with Yishmael, Avraham was told very clearly: "Kol asher tomar eilecha Sarah, shma bkolah" [All that Sarah says/will say to you, listen to her voice (the last two words have the implication of obedience)]...

 

I think y'all weaken the thrust of your argument when you assert that your model is the only one that can work when it seems to me that your point is that your model is the one you believe G-d gave you for strong, G-d serving Xtian marriages.

 

When you make the first assertion, those of us with strong, healthy, happy marriages which don't fit your model at all are going to speak up and disagree with you... and I wish more of you would *listen* to what we are saying even though it falls outside your experiences and your assumptions about marriage.

 

It is frustrating to hear over and over again that a marriage can't work without a final decider, someone who is in charge when many of us can (and have) testified that this is not true. Equal power dynamics are possible - and can result in strong, vibrant, happy marriages. I don't think acknowledging that detracts from your position that your model is the one Divinely mandated for Xtian marriages.

 

Eliana, you make a wonderful point, and you stated it very respectfully and clearly.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of happy marriages that do not follow the Biblical example. I would never say 'the only way to have a happy marriage is found in the Bible'. I *would however say that the way to a Godly marriage, a Christian marriage, can be found in the scriptures.

 

Any 'advice' or 'opinion' I give on the topic of Christian submission, or the way a Christian marraige should operate, applies only to Christians.

 

I have no idea why anyone would give 'Christian' advice about submission to someone who is not a Christian. It is not relevant, and does not apply to them.

 

However, if another woman who claims to be a follower of Christ openly rejects what I believe the Bible says about marraige; well, then it is not just my *right, but also my *duty as a sister in Christ to reason with her.

[Lovedtodeath]

But Rosie is not a Christian and said that the headship principle improves her marriage.

[CAMom]

The second case is a sweeping assertion about all marriages, Xtian or not, and is not (that I can see) based on anybody's scriptures, it is an assertion about how relationships have to be to work.

 

 

 

I've been specifically speaking about Christian marriages since I thought that was the original intent of the thread. I will say, though, that to be consistent in my beliefs I would say that I do believe that God's design for marriage is found in the Bible.

 

That does not at all mean that I do not believe that there are countless marriages of non-Christians that are not healthy and happy. Something doesn't have to be functioning at the ideal for it to be working and fine.

 

I am not at all judging anyone else's marriage. As a Christian I do believe that marriage is a creation ordinance and that it was intended to function as outlined in the Christian Scriptures. If I believed anything else, then I wouldn't be consistent.

 

But, as I stated, I have seen plenty of people who are not Christians living in healthy and happy marriages.:)

 

When you make the first assertion, those of us with strong, healthy, happy marriages which don't fit your model at all are going to speak up and disagree with you... and I wish more of you would *listen* to what we are saying even though it falls outside your experiences and your assumptions about marriage.

 

It is frustrating to hear over and over again that a marriage can't work without a final decider, someone who is in charge when many of us can (and have) testified that this is not true. Equal power dynamics are possible - and can result in strong, vibrant, happy marriages. I don't think acknowledging that detracts from your position that your model is the one Divinely mandated for Xtian marriages.

 

I hear you, Eliana. I really do.:grouphug: And, I think I know what you're feeling because it is equally as frustrating to hear over and over again that a marriage that is healthy and happy and modeling the biblical example is akin to the wife being a doormat, the husband being dominant, leading women into oppression, etc.

[Scarlett]

The second case is a sweeping assertion about all marriages, Xtian or not, and is not (that I can see) based on anybody's scriptures, it is an assertion about how relationships have to be to work.

 

Count me out of that camp. I see many non Christian marriages that I feel work. I see many Christian marriages that I think are broken. I see many Christian marriages that follow the headship principle and yet no outsider would ever even notice because it is done with respect and love.

 

I think y'all weaken the thrust of your argument when you assert that your model is the only one that can work when it seems to me that your point is that your model is the one you believe G-d gave you for strong, G-d serving Xtian marriages.

 

When you make the first assertion, those of us with strong, healthy, happy marriages which don't fit your model at all are going to speak up and disagree with you... and I wish more of you would *listen* to what we are saying even though it falls outside your experiences and your assumptions about marriage.

 

Well, I definitely want to listen. I will be the first to admit I have ZERO experience with a good marriage. I do not fault the Christian model for that though.

[Scarlett]

Well, my DH would probably go talk to the guy regardless. He just would make a secular rather than a Christian argument.

 

That would impress me. I always like to see men stand up to other men and say things like, 'get off your rear and get a job.' :tongue_smilie:

 

Scarlett

(who can't abide by a man who won't work)

[lionfamily1999]

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.

We actually went through this sort of thing and it DID lead to a better marraige. No birthday parties for a year, because dh could not bring himself to say okay, no anniversary stuff, we stayed home, same reason. It came to a head and he was wondering why everything was going wrong and we finally had the heart to heart that I'd been having with the walls while he ignored the issues. From there he has stood up and taken the lead and while, at first, it was daunting, he's grown quite a bit and is a richer version of who he was, iykwIm.

[Renee in NC]

We actually went through this sort of thing and it DID lead to a better marraige. No birthday parties for a year, because dh could not bring himself to say okay, no anniversary stuff, we stayed home, same reason. It came to a head and he was wondering why everything was going wrong and we finally had the heart to heart that I'd been having with the walls while he ignored the issues. From there he has stood up and taken the lead and while, at first, it was daunting, he's grown quite a bit and is a richer version of who he was, iykwIm.

 

That's interesting! A year, huh? How did you stand it? Was your power cutoff or some other thing? How did you handle the dc and the effect that it had on them? Did you have to staple your mouth shut?:lol:

 

I've never heard of someone who did this in a difficult relationship and had a positive outcome. So PM details if you are willing!

[Joanne]

Fair enough. The reason I asked is because if it is "cultural" for the husband to be the head of the wife, is it also "cultural" for Christ to be the head of the Church?

 

If not, then, I'm curious as the definition of what "head" means? Do Christ and the church engage in mutual submission? Do they have an equal share of authority?

 

Yes, I totally agree that Christ serves the Church sacrificially but does He ever submit to her?

 

There are several "alternate" views of headship, the verbiage of that scripture, etc. I've read countless articles about the subject. I'm not going to offer some that represent my take, however, as it would be dismissed immediately for a variety of reasons.

 

No, on the mutual submission and Christ. Mutual submission of husband and wife is IN the Bible. The husband/wife and Christ/church metaphor only goes so far, of course, and with your questions, we've reached that limit. :001_smile: It's not a valid question because it's a metaphor, not meant to be a perfect comparison, or exact same situation.

[DawnM]

But see, this is where delegation comes in. It is just understood that I am the events coordinator in the family. If DH can't make it or doesn't want to go, he is welcome to say no but is very good at being fine with me or me and the kids going, or whatever. I am the extrovert, he is the introvert.

 

I also wonder if this is real submission if you are saying that your DH finally wondered why everything was going *wrong*. Doesn't that imply that you didn't respect him and the way he was doing things.....doesn't submission mean that you wouldn't wait for the collapse of the way he did things to say an "I told you so" or "see what a mess you made of things."

 

Dawn

 

 

 

 

We actually went through this sort of thing and it DID lead to a better marraige. No birthday parties for a year, because dh could not bring himself to say okay, no anniversary stuff, we stayed home, same reason. It came to a head and he was wondering why everything was going wrong and we finally had the heart to heart that I'd been having with the walls while he ignored the issues. From there he has stood up and taken the lead and while, at first, it was daunting, he's grown quite a bit and is a richer version of who he was, iykwIm.

[Scarlett]

But see, this is where delegation comes in. It is just understood that I am the events coordinator in the family. If DH can't make it or doesn't want to go, he is welcome to say no but is very good at being fine with me or me and the kids going, or whatever. I am the extrovert, he is the introvert.

 

Yeah, even in my horrible marriage, I ran day to day without questions from stbxh. If I wanted to have my parents for dinner I would say, 'I want to invite my parents for dinner Sunday. Is that ok with you?' That feels more like common courtesy though than submission. To make sure he didn't have prior plans....

[Rosie_0801]

But Rosie is not a Christian and said that the headship principle improves her marriage.

 

That does not at all mean that I do not believe that there are countless marriages of non-Christians that are not healthy and happy. Something doesn't have to be functioning at the ideal for it to be working and fine.

 

 

 

Heheh. But she only uses that way of describing it when talking to you guys. "Christianese," if you like.

 

;)

Rosie

[Ginevra]

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.

 

Cyndi, I think I understand this about your beliefs. For myself, it just doesn't incense me that another person has authority over me, or headship or however you wish to call it. I have worked in jobs where I wasn't the president. I had a boss, who also had a boss above him. I accept it just fine, because the boss has the authority. My boss accepted that there was still additional authority above him. That there was a heirarchy didn't bother me.

 

I understand how you are saying "why should he have authority over me just because he's male?" Well, I guess I see where that might bother some, but to me it's just not a point of outrage. He never "plays" the authority card. If I submit to his authority, that is a choice I make. There just wouldn't be any reason to be incensed about a choice I made.

[lionfamily1999]

But see, this is where delegation comes in. It is just understood that I am the events coordinator in the family. If DH can't make it or doesn't want to go, he is welcome to say no but is very good at being fine with me or me and the kids going, or whatever. I am the extrovert, he is the introvert.

 

I also wonder if this is real submission if you are saying that your DH finally wondered why everything was going *wrong*. Doesn't that imply that you didn't respect him and the way he was doing things.....doesn't submission mean that you wouldn't wait for the collapse of the way he did things to say an "I told you so" or "see what a mess you made of things."

 

Dawn

My problem with being the coordinator, which I was, was that I could not get his input on anything. I could not get a 'good idea,' 'bad idea,' or 'I don't care.' Nothing, except, I don't know ask me later.

 

And really, I was submitting, to his indecision. Dh used to freeze whenever any sort of decision was needed. He's the breadwinner and I could never get a definitive 'yes we can afford this' or 'no, come up with something cheaper.' Finally having him step up and say yes or no has done wonderful things for us both.

 

I never said, 'I told you so.' What was said, in a nutshell, was, "I need your input. I need to know definitively where you stand." I'd been trying to tell him that me running the show and him running the show, at the same time, was NOT working. I tried to tell him a lot of things, but he could not hear me (I believe all he heard was, 'Drew, nag nag nag nag nag"). When I finally submitted (instead of trying to run it and submit which is obviously impossible) whole heartedly, there were HUGE bumps in the road, but we needed those bumps to bring us closer to God's plan. Now that we're both more in line with God's plan (we've still got plenty to work on, but we're closer :p) things are better.

 

Yes, it stunk to not have things and to finally let go, but since I have we're all better for it.

[Ginevra]

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!

 

Meh. That's fine. I read around at nolongerquivering, but still did not see your poll as a question for those with jerks for husbands. :D The "neck-and-neck" aspect is interesting to me, too, and I almost considered writing a s/o post for each to describe how the changing went, but I don't really have time to maintain the thread and figured it was too similar to this one, so nevermind.

 

I think those (myself included) who would say it was very positive would mostly (or entirely) be woman who a) came to the conclusion out of their own heart/study/reading/conviction (as opposed to taught it/counseled it from a pastor or others); and b) were married to fair, loving, decent men to begin with. :)

[CAMom]

There are several "alternate" views of headship, the verbiage of that scripture, etc. I've read countless articles about the subject. I'm not going to offer some that represent my take, however, as it would be dismissed immediately for a variety of reasons.

 

No, on the mutual submission and Christ. Mutual submission of husband and wife is IN the Bible. The husband/wife and Christ/church metaphor only goes so far, of course, and with your questions, we've reached that limit. :001_smile: It's not a valid question because it's a metaphor, not meant to be a perfect comparison, or exact same situation.

 

OK, I respect that. I have to admit to my curiosity, though. It's not something I've ever heard so my natural inclination is to ask about it. As I said, I try to remain open minded and willing to change my opinion if I am shown where I have made an error in my understanding of Scripture.

 

But, I totally understand if you don't want to provide the information. Maybe I can find it myself.

[Ginevra]

Originally Posted by SolaMichella

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:

 

 

:iagree:

 

And that is just the question that I was never able to have answered by "mutual submission". It hasn't happened a lot, but it has happened. And I can tell you, it embitters everyone involved if both think they are equally entitled to having their "way". I think circumcision is a perfect example, although it wasn't an issue in my marriage. You can't "compromise" on whether or not to circ. your baby boy. You either do it or you don't. So, if dh really thinks it's crucial and he is a man and he feels he knows what a man would think about that issue and you are against it because you're a loving lil' mama and this is your baby boy's personal parts and isn't that so barbaric?...You see how it goes. The baby either has to be circumcized or not. The kids are either homeschooled or not. We move to Alaska or not. And so on and so on. These issues can happen. I think it has much more potential to embitter if both people think they have equal access to the "final say".

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm glad you got the medical help you needed, that your DH loved you enough to say so and you respected him enough to submit.

 

The paragraph you wrote could easily happen here - and has. Only the genders could represent either party.

 

I'm not anti-submission. I'm pro MUTUAL submission.

I think that I am understanding your viewpoint. I don't think it stands in stark contrast to mine.

[Crimson Wife]

That would impress me. I always like to see men stand up to other men and say things like, 'get off your rear and get a job.' :tongue_smilie:

 

He's never had to do that, but he did once confront a guy whom we suspected of domestic abuse. :ohmy:

[Sputterduck]

He's never had to do that, but he did once confront a guy whom we suspected of domestic abuse. :ohmy:

 

 

How did that play out? Did it end well?

[DawnM]

Sure, and I always do that and so does DH. He often calls from work and says, "I was invited out to play golf Saturday morning. Do we have plans?"

 

You are right, there is common courtesy involved.

 

Dawn

 

Yeah, even in my horrible marriage, I ran day to day without questions from stbxh. If I wanted to have my parents for dinner I would say, 'I want to invite my parents for dinner Sunday. Is that ok with you?' That feels more like common courtesy though than submission. To make sure he didn't have prior plans....

[DawnM]

See, I think it is hard to convey on a message board all that goes on in a family/relationship, you know? My take on what you said was probably far different than what actually went on.

 

My husband does give me the "let me think about it" too and I sometimes have to re-iterate the "what do you think about such and such" whether it is something I think we need to buy, a vacation I would like to go on, or any decision we need to make. I do try very hard not to nag and I know he is the type who needs to think about things and I am a talk it out type, so it is hard for me to step away and let him think! ;)

 

But I think that is also where the Lord blesses us with different abilities, talents, and even ways of perceiving things. This is one of the things Crown Financial points out.....husbands need to get input on things from their spouses re: decisions because they will often have valuable input and a new way of looking at things. And visa versa. Can you tell I am sold on Crown? I think everyone should take it!

 

Anyway, glad it is working out for you. It isn't the method I would have used but my DH and I may have a very different relationship OR God may be telling you something for your marriage that is different than what he is telling me.

 

Dawn

 

 

 

My problem with being the coordinator, which I was, was that I could not get his input on anything. I could not get a 'good idea,' 'bad idea,' or 'I don't care.' Nothing, except, I don't know ask me later.

 

And really, I was submitting, to his indecision. Dh used to freeze whenever any sort of decision was needed. He's the breadwinner and I could never get a definitive 'yes we can afford this' or 'no, come up with something cheaper.' Finally having him step up and say yes or no has done wonderful things for us both.

 

I never said, 'I told you so.' What was said, in a nutshell, was, "I need your input. I need to know definitively where you stand." I'd been trying to tell him that me running the show and him running the show, at the same time, was NOT working. I tried to tell him a lot of things, but he could not hear me (I believe all he heard was, 'Drew, nag nag nag nag nag"). When I finally submitted (instead of trying to run it and submit which is obviously impossible) whole heartedly, there were HUGE bumps in the road, but we needed those bumps to bring us closer to God's plan. Now that we're both more in line with God's plan (we've still got plenty to work on, but we're closer :p) things are better.

 

Yes, it stunk to not have things and to finally let go, but since I have we're all better for it.

[Joanne]

:iagree:

 

And that is just the question that I was never able to have answered by "mutual submission". It hasn't happened a lot, but it has happened. And I can tell you, it embitters everyone involved if both think they are equally entitled to having their "way". I think circumcision is a perfect example, although it wasn't an issue in my marriage. You can't "compromise" on whether or not to circ. your baby boy. You either do it or you don't. So, if dh really thinks it's crucial and he is a man and he feels he knows what a man would think about that issue and you are against it because you're a loving lil' mama and this is your baby boy's personal parts and isn't that so barbaric?...You see how it goes. The baby either has to be circumcized or not. The kids are either homeschooled or not. We move to Alaska or not. And so on and so on. These issues can happen. I think it has much more potential to embitter if both people think they have equal access to the "final say".

 

I could not disagree more with the bolded part. As mature, equal, non hierarchal adults, we both know that in the (exceedingly rare) situations where a final decision needs to be made at an impasse, both parties have the responsibility of moving foward with maturity, grace, kindness and a lack of "I told you so".

 

I can't *imagine* as an adult in a partnership not having equal access - or not granting equal access to the "final say".

 

However, I find the final say/final decision to be extrabiblical, imposed onto scripture rather than emerging from the heart of it. (when it comes to marriage)

[8circles]

I think that I am understanding your viewpoint. I don't think it stands in stark contrast to mine.

 

I agree with this as well.

 

To me, it is very much a matter of my heart. There was no discussion between DH & me that he gets the final say. It is more that we discuss & we either come to mutual agreement or I trust that sometimes his judgement might be better than mine. We haven't ever had major disagreements about anything so maybe that's why this works.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I don't know how to double quote (I've tried numerous times and nothing happens), so I will try to do this from memory:

 

To the person who said that there is "no such thing as equal partnerships", that just made me laugh. Yeah, actually, there are. I know very few people IRL who do NOT practice mutual submission/equal partnerships.

 

Someone asked "but how does that work if you take turns?" It works because, like Joanne said, there is no score card. It's not like, 'you got to make the last decision, now it's my turn". The circ debate was a good one. Before we even married I told him that I would never circ a son of mine without medical cause. When I told him why he was fine with it. He is just as adament about some things. (not moving to Germany, for one)

 

There are some things that are simply non-negotiable. When my brother was dying I TOLD my dh when I would be gone/when I would be home. If he would have EVAH tried to tell me that that was not okay,....no way. Just no way. Of course, I wouldn't have married someone who would do that, anyway. (I'm sure many here feel the same way)

 

I don't know how being told, "if you can't have the final say ever ("are a doormat") just becuase you are a woman" is an insult. That is the life you have chosen. If you don't like it, then change it. (I don't mean leave your husband, I mean live the life you want!)

 

We MUTUALLY submit to each other, sometimes it is him to me, sometimes it is me to him. It is a beautiful thing. Today is our 16th Anniversary. Woohoo! (And, no, I do not mean to imply at all that we have been married this long because we have an equal partnership. There are many who have been married longer than we have who have unequal marraiges, too!)

 

I vowed from the time I was a litle girl that I would never be in a relationship like that. I BRIEFLY had a relationship like that as a teenager. EYE OPENER and a reminder of what I simply could not abide.

 

I would be heartbroken if my children chose a headship relationship, just like many of you would be heartbroken if your kids chose to not be a part of xianity. I get that. My family thinks that I'm a good mom "except for not having the kids in church". :rolleyes:

 

We can continue to go round and round about this and I suspect we will, if not on this thread, on others. ;)

 

And, yes, I have a boss. I am not incessed over that hierarchy. But....she is MY BOSS, not MY HUSBAND. I didn't marry my boss. I married my best friend and I'll be ****ed if he is going to have authority over me just b/c he's a man! We are PARTNERS in this, equal partners.

Edited November 19, 2009 by ThatCyndiGirl

[Renee in NC]

Well, my DH would probably go talk to the guy regardless. He just would make a secular rather than a Christian argument.

 

About 11 or 12 years ago, someone did this to me. I had gone to a friend in confidence, upset that my dh (in the Army at the time) was doing something that I was really unhappy with and wasn't handling well. He was in the field (on maneuvers) and I knew when he returned that it was going to come up again.

 

My friend told her dh who took it upon himself to confront my dh!:001_huh: It was BAD (for you military wives - this other dh was an E-5 to my dh's E-3 and they were in the same artillery battery.)

 

Not only did it *not* change the situation and my dh did it anyway, now he was FURIOUS with me as well. It made him *more* likely to do what I wanted him not to do!

 

So make sure that your dh's help is wanted/needed/profitable before he sticks his 2 cents into someone else's marriage.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Oh, and the "I was thinking about having the Smith's over on Sunday, does that work for you?" is common courtesy, imo, not a matter of who is "in charge". We talk to each other about social engagements, kid activities, money, etc. To me that is just about respect, not about authority.

[Renee in NC]

Oh, and the "I was thinking about having the Smith's over on Sunday, does that work for you?" is common courtesy, imo, not a matter of who is "in charge". We talk to each other about social engagements, kid activities, money, etc. To me that is just about respect, not about authority.

 

:iagree:

[Ginevra]

The circ debate was a good one. Before we even married I told him that I would never circ a son of mine without medical cause. When I told him why he was fine with it. He is just as adament about some things. (not moving to Germany, for one)

 

There are some things that are simply non-negotiable. When my brother was dying I TOLD my dh when I would be gone/when I would be home. If he would have EVAH tried to tell me that that was not okay,....no way. Just no way.

 

Cyndi, that's not an example. If you said you would never circ and your husband agreed, then obviously there's no issue. Before I was married, I said we will never have a home where dh comes home from work and stares at the TV for five hours, then goes to bed, such as my dad did. He agreed. The end. But there have been things I have come to want/do that were never even on my radar screen when we first got married. Those are the types of issues where we could potentially find we are at completely opposite ends of an issue and there isn't really a way to somewhat do both (as with circumcision; you can't "kind of" circ, obviously).

 

Also, there does arise situations where I am definitely doing X. I certainly hope he would support it. But if he supports it, or at least goes along with it, then submission isn't even part of the picture. I had a sister that died; I understand where you're coming from in speaking of your brother. But of course, my dh would not prevent me from doing whatever was necessary wrt my sister. Of course! I just don't see submission as having a role in something like that. What sort of guy would say, "No, you can't go see your dying brother"? :confused: That would be heinous!

[Ginevra]

I could not disagree more with the bolded part. As mature, equal, non hierarchal adults, we both know that in the (exceedingly rare) situations where a final decision needs to be made at an impasse, both parties have the responsibility of moving foward with maturity, grace, kindness and a lack of "I told you so".

 

I can't *imagine* as an adult in a partnership not having equal access - or not granting equal access to the "final say".

 

However, I find the final say/final decision to be extrabiblical, imposed onto scripture rather than emerging from the heart of it. (when it comes to marriage)

 

In my experience, it did not go as you described. I would say such situations have become rarer as we've grown. I've learned a lot about how to approach an issue wherein there might be disparity. But, in earlier years, we did have a few issues that went very badly. It would have been a far better thing if I would have acquiesced to his view. I think, ultimately, he probably would have eventually changed his mind and come around to "my way" anyway. But it did become very contentious because we both believed so totally that our concerns were paramount and the other's way was detrimental.

 

Fortunately, I also learned from that experience that it's not wise to come in with guns blazing, pushing for my "way" on an issue that he probably won't like. We are two very stubborn people and this is no doubt why some things went badly in our earlier years. My SIL has a method she uses in business; she calls it "the drip". I learned that "the drip" was the best way to approach a touchy issue. Drip it on him and see what he thinks. Drip it on him a little more after he's had time to think about it. The Drip is very wise. I wish I had learned about it when I was 23, instead of...oh, I don't know...33?

[Joanne]

In my experience, it did not go as you described. I would say such situations have become rarer as we've grown. I've learned a lot about how to approach an issue wherein there might be disparity. But, in earlier years, we did have a few issues that went very badly. It would have been a far better thing if I would have acquiesced to his view. I think, ultimately, he probably would have eventually changed his mind and come around to "my way" anyway. But it did become very contentious because we both believed so totally that our concerns were paramount and the other's way was detrimental.

 

Fortunately, I also learned from that experience that it's not wise to come in with guns blazing, pushing for my "way" on an issue that he probably won't like. We are two very stubborn people and this is no doubt why some things went badly in our earlier years. My SIL has a method she uses in business; she calls it "the drip". I learned that "the drip" was the best way to approach a touchy issue. Drip it on him and see what he thinks. Drip it on him a little more after he's had time to think about it. The Drip is very wise. I wish I had learned about it when I was 23, instead of...oh, I don't know...33?

 

Most of what you are talking about in the above is a function of time, maturity and the length of the relationship in the hands of maturing people. Such process hopefully occurs regardless of the choices made with regard to decisions on final say.

[Scarlett]

Most of what you are talking about in the above is a function of time, maturity and the length of the relationship in the hands of maturing people. Such process hopefully occurs regardless of the choices made with regard to decisions on final say.

 

This is true. Sometimes I think we don't disagree on this issue at all. :tongue_smilie:

[Crimson Wife]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Wife

He's never had to do that, but he did once confront a guy whom we suspected of domestic abuse. :ohmy:

 

 

 

How did that play out? Did it end well?

 

Not long after, the creep wound up in jail for possession of meth & intent to distribute. Shocker, huh?:tongue_smilie:

[Crimson Wife]

About 11 or 12 years ago, someone did this to me. I had gone to a friend in confidence, upset that my dh (in the Army at the time) was doing something that I was really unhappy with and wasn't handling well. He was in the field (on maneuvers) and I knew when he returned that it was going to come up again.

 

My friend told her dh who took it upon himself to confront my dh!:001_huh: It was BAD (for you military wives - this other dh was an E-5 to my dh's E-3 and they were in the same artillery battery.)

 

Not only did it *not* change the situation and my dh did it anyway, now he was FURIOUS with me as well. It made him *more* likely to do what I wanted him not to do!

 

So make sure that your dh's help is wanted/needed/profitable before he sticks his 2 cents into someone else's marriage.

 

So if you see somebody drowning, you're just supposed to turn a blind eye to it? I agree with you about not going around butting into everyone's business all the time, but it IS appropriate (and I would say a moral obligation) in a serious situation.

 

I don't want to have to answer to God about knowing something bad was happening and choosing to ignore it.