I've never really understood the whole "we need a final decision maker in case of impasse" argument. I mean, shouldn't we be trying to avoid the impasse point altogether?
Absolutely! However, there may be times where that is not reality. Hopefully very rarely, but as people that is a possibility.
Let me address how I believe the marriage model is presented in scripture. As many of you know, if I have to put myself in a bucket it would be complimentarian and I have concerns with how I understand both the egaliatrian and patriarchial viewpoints (though I am always open to greater understanding).
Quoting scripture for informational purposes only, not to debate how it should be interpreted, but rather to present how I (as one complimentarian sees it) specifically to the point Tamara brought up.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
I think that indicates that if the husband and wife, after much prayer and discussion, cannot agree on an issue, the wife does defer to the husband's judgement. Someone has to make the call if an impasse is reached, particularly if a "no decision" is effectively a decision. The wife is called to defer to his decision and leadership in those cases. And I think Tamara's use of the word "trying" is telling in that it indicates it may not be possible in all cases to avoid the impasse despite best efforts.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.
Without the next verses, the objection of some "why should the husband always get what he wants" or the false doctrine of the man believing he is the family dominator would be understandable. However, the verses to the husband also make it clear that he is to give himself up for her, to love her as Christ loved the church. As I understand it, that means that he should be seeking a way for his wife's needs and desires to be met, ahead of his own. In that way, he is deferring his wants to meet her desires and needs where possible.
I'll give you an example that happened to Roberston McQuilken, former head of Columbia International University and a missionary to Japan. If you want to read the story of a man loving his wife as Christ loved the church, read "A Promise Kept". He gave up everything career and prestige wise to care for her when she developed early onset Alzheimers. He taught men at our church several times after his retirement.
In any case, he told us one time that while his belief was the bible prescribed to him final family decision authority, that during all his years of marriage to Muriel there were only a handful of times where they did not come to agreement on a course of action after prayer and discussion. One of those was when he felt they were called to leave the mission field and go to academia and Murial felt strongly they were to stay in Japan. They simply did not feel God was calling them to the same place. They had a deadline, and not actively accepting the academic roles by the deadline was the same as turning them down. Who then makes the call? Biblically, he does as I understand the scriptures.
Robertson also cautioned that in his marriage he could count on one hand the number of times those type issues had happened. Why? Because both were seeking to serve the other first. He cautioned us that if as men we found ourselves wanting to "pull rank" with any regularity, we needed to first examine ourselves and make sure we were fulfilling our role. Not that women aren't capable of ignoring their responsibilities, they are - but the danger for us as men with the role we've been given is that we give in to our temptations and desires first. Women have the same problem which manifests itself the same way - giving into their desires rather than accepting God's word. In those cases then these types of conflicts would also arise more often and have the be handled.
All that to say I really do appreciate Tamara's point. And I've been fortunate to be in a marriage where we both seek to serve the other, so perhaps I through experience relate to Robertson's perspective. But I also think it optimistic to believe any marriage will always avoid those points were a decision has to be made and the two are at an impasse. And I believe the bible, as stated above, tells us how to handle that.
And I hope in stating the above I have stayed within the guidelines set forth by our moderators, because I'm really trying to do so... I'm not looking to start the old debates and downward spirals of the past - rather to present a different viewpoint for better understanding. Same as I interpreted the original posts intent.
)
