Christian Marriage

[dallasapple]

Certainly there are abuses where the man dominates the woman and does not allow her to speak or be involved in and serious discussion. I have a major problem with that, but I have also seen the other extreme where women use "equality" ans an excuse to take the lead by belittling and disrespect their husbands, push them out of any responsibility,"immasculate" them and dominate the same amount as some men have abused their wives in the past. They disrespect their husbands with an amazing amount of Comtempt.

Both of these are wrong period..but that in NO way means a "man" by just the fact he is a male human..versus a female human is a better "leader" or is in ANY WAY mre "qualified" than her ...let alone does it in ANY way mean that she "needs' a man to be her authority or her "head"..

In fact BOTH of your examples are a great example why NO spouse ..should be the head or authority over the other spouse..unless one is disabled..

Dallas

 

[mkgal1]

I can't believe I'm the minority here. Scriptures say to the wives to submit specifically, never is it specifically mentioned to the man.

Woman - submit to husband AS UNTO THE LORD.
Men - love wives as CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH.

How is this overlooked? Submission of women is advocated both by Paul (unmarried) and Peter (married).

This is the passage right before "wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord."

15 See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another in the fear of God."

 

[dallasapple]

Man! That whole submission thing is so subjective, it's not even worth discussing with anyone other than your own spouse. I mean, that's the only person it should really matter to anyway.

My husband and I both kind of take a humorous view of it. This hasn't always been the case but not too long ago we were talking about something and I disagreed with him so he stood up and looking all Roman gladiator-like goes, "Submit woman!" I knew he was kidding and we both had a good laugh about it. It served to add a little comic relief to a discussion that could have easily gotten way out of hand. As a result of stepping back and having a laugh, we were both able to come to an agreement about the subject.

We have our disagreements here and there. He makes me mad. I make him mad. One day is great, the next ok and the third could be a disaster. But we love each other and try to just do our best by each other. We've got kids and that can add a whole new monkey wrench into the works at times. We're working on getting on the same page with that kind of stuff too. I try my best to see his side of things. I hope he does with me. I think he does. Anyway, I personally think that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" works better as a guideline for marriage than just about anything else.

So yeah, there's my $0.02 for what it's worth.

Yeah ..but do unto others as you would have them do unto you wasnt an instruction by Paul for marriage..its about "whos in charge" dont ya know?

Do unto other as you would have them do unto you sounds too "equal".That might require "submission " on the mans part to his wife..thats "emasculating" ...

Dallas

 

[ex-pat]

I can't believe I'm the minority here. Scriptures say to the wives to submit specifically, never is it specifically mentioned to the man.

Woman - submit to husband AS UNTO THE LORD.
Men - love wives as CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH.

How is this overlooked? Submission of women is advocated both by Paul (unmarried) and Peter (married).

10 A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

When my husband and I married, we had discussions about this...I insisted that he be the head of the household. In our faith tradition, a the home is to be a mirror of the Church. Therefore, it makes no sense for the head of the house to be a woman, when the Head of the Church is Christ. Gender conflict there.

That said, when we look at Proverbs 31, we see that the Biblical ideal was not slavish dependency on the "whims" of a husband, but that a woman was expected to be a manager, a provider, an investor who dealt in real estate and decide how to turn the assets to profit. She does not do those things which cause ruin (spiritual or physical) to her household, nor is she subject to mistrust. Her husband values her, honours her, and trusts her implicitly.

All the fallacious statements about how one person is the head of the household and the other a slave miss the point entirely. In another circumstance, should two people start a company, one is named as president, one as vice-president. The two use their knowledge to make a success of their venture, each seeking the advice of the other in an area where that person is strongest. However, if they disagree about how something should be done, the one has the authority to make the final decision. Does this mean a president does not value a vice-president? Or that the vice-president is chattel or a non-person, or has sub-normal intelligence? Of course not! Does a president exist to be empty of all thought, and only to ratify what his vice-president says, thus putting all control and power into that person, and nullifying his own value and contributions? Never!

In marriage, the concept of submission does not mean a woman has no value, and a man is a tyrant. In a wholesome, Christ-centred marriage, we consult each other, with care and love for the thoughts and feelings of the other, and regard for the expertise of the other, but then it comes time to make a final decision. My husband has that power, and because he knows it's a power, it is never, ever abused. Does he change his mind after discussing things with me? Absolutely, as I can change my mind after discussing things with him. Being the head of the household does not mean that he wakes up, makes a decision, and carves it in stone.

For those who say that a man should not be head of the household merely because he is a man, because being born male is not a qualifier for anything, you are quite correct. Men are born male, and then should from that day be trained in what it means to be a CHRISTIAN MAN. From birth they should be taught to love Christ, and make Him the centre of all things in life...from business deals to friends to choosing a Godly wife. From birth they must be taught to use their strength wisely, to love and to care for their family as Christ loves and cares for all of us. If from birth men are told they must care for and honour their wives, provide for their families, not antagonize their children, and grow strong in the Lord, then they will grow to be men suitable to take their place as head of a household dedicated to the Lord. It's the same with everything...in the corporate world, people do not become CEO without learning and being groomed for the job for years. In politics, one serves at lower levels, learning the ropes before becoming Prime Minister. With men, they must be trained from boyhood to become MEN. Being a Christian man is not a function merely of age, but of training.

We live in a society that does not care to provide that training. A man is mocked or abused for opening a car door for a woman, or holding a door for her in a public place. Women ignore the courtesy or care with snarls of "I can do that for myself!" Well, of course they can. No one, including the man holding the door, doubted it for a moment. It's just courtesy, something which is lacking today in the world. Courtesy, the care of others, and the willingness to hear and to listen and to give and take advice before a decision is made which affects others are vanishing from our society, in both men and women, to be replaced with an incessant struggle for "my rights".

In no place in the Bible do I find Christ saying that everyone is equal, except in their equality in Him. Men, where will you be if Christ asks you to account for how you treated your wives and children and if you provided for them, or if you thought the latest toys, cars, and entertainment to be more important than nurturing and providing? Women, where will you be if Christ asks you to account for how you treated your husbands and children, and if you nurtured them, and loved them, and provided for your home, and kept it in good repair, and in peace, and trusted in Christ, or if you thought that to prove equality you needed to argue with your husband over everything, and to rule your children without seeing their needs or fears or hopes?

Of course I'm not saying that all men and women who do not view male head of the household as the correct thing to do are bad, evil, or not providers, or not loving or caring. I am saying, however, that a militant insistence on being the same indicates a certain lack of trust in Christ, and what He said is best. Being a Christian is not based on works alone, but on faith. We must have that faith that Christ knew what He was talking about.

 

[JRSut1000]

I have nothing more to add, that was AWESOME!

 

[jehoiakim]

A good head or spiritual leader isn't alone... think of a church, I would never go to a church where the pastor ran the whole show without any accountability... you can theoretically solve a lot of arguments without a leader, but for 1 out of 100 you need a leader, and if one isn't the leader one will arise anyway. At times my wife has had to be a leader and point out my sin, but in general she rely on me to lead not because I want to, certainly not because I am better at it, but because I am called to.

Some people take those scriptures that were pointed out before and try to reintepret them to their liking, maybe there is some merit to that, but for us we would rather err on the side of caution and it has worked out for us quite well. You can ask my wife, because as I said before she is the one who insists I lead and she herself if a far better more qualified leader then me

 

[mkgal1]

If a husband absolutely says "NO", then obviously as long as he isn't asking you to sin, then do so. I think it's straightforward. Not what many women want to hear, but that's how it is.

Pesonally, the issue that I have with interpreting the Bible in this way is, it seems that "sin" gets narrowed....meaning much less is qualified as sin, because we have that word "everything" to deal with. "Everything" is a pretty broad area and I didn't see any exceptions in the text.

I believe that sin is "missing the mark". That's an archery term related to bullseyes. When Moses was asked by God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt......do you think most people considered it a "sin" that he felt unworthy....unqualified to carry that out, so he wanted his brother, Aaron to partner with him?

IMO.....God allowed that....but, I think He had a better plan. I believe in God's "permissive will" and his "perfect will". I think God's original plan included Moses entering the Promise Land and for most of the original Israelites to make it there as well........in a year....not the forty years it did take, with the remains of most of the 3 million or so that perished decaying in the wildnerness.

 

[dallasapple]

We live in a society that does not care to provide that training. A man is mocked or abused for opening a car door for a woman, or holding a door for her in a public place. Women ignore the courtesy or care with snarls of "I can do that for myself!" Well, of course they can. No one, including the man holding the door, doubted it for a moment. It's just courtesy, something which is lacking today in the world. Courtesy, the care of others, and the willingness to hear and to listen and to give and take advice before a decision is made which affects others are vanishing from our society, in both men and women, to be replaced with an incessant struggle for "my rights".

I personally welcome any door beign opened for me..I grew up in the south.As well as I open doors for men..

I have also never personaly met ..nor seen any woman "snarl" mock or a abuse a man for holdign the door open for her..In my soicety..(where I love) men and women open doors for EACH other..

Also as far as "traingin theman " from birth to be the head of the house hold..Why?its not a NEED.the man doesnt "need' to be the head anymore than the woman does.

And for me anyway ..marraige is NOT like a business whre one person needs to have ultimate authority..with a "trusted advisor"..My analogy is marraige is more like a musical group..you each one play an insturment as well as you can you do your best at it ..you sound GREAT solo...you DECIDE you want to PLAY music TOGETHER..no one is "leader" you have a wonderful sound when your playing side by side complimenting one another.Richer and deeper than if you were playing solo..Something completely new you create together..EACH one as valuable as the other obviously..But ther is no leader..because there is no POINT to a leader..you are playing together ...

Its like if a song is written for a violin and piano in mind for the sound..I play the part of the violin my husband the piano...would you then say 'whos the leader though?GOT to have a LEADER"?..

Dallas

 

[jehoiakim]

I had a woman snarl at me once for opening the door for her, I was in Connecticut

 

[ex-pat]

Dallas, I would say they need a leader in music as well. Otherwise, you'll have days when you're playing Beethoven while your husband is playing Bach...in your example, you skipped the decision making process and jumped to the execution. You still have to decide what to play. In your example, it's OK to say "Do you want Beethoven?" and run down a list of composers until you find one you do agree to...it might be 10th choice for both of you, but you'd a agree...not a problem in music, but what about in real life? Some things have only one choice, such as "Do we attend church together or stay home?" Tenth choice down the line doesn't make it..there are two options, someone must decide.

 

[mkgal1]

But....that leader is God....isn't it?

 

[EmilyF]

Dallas, I would say they need a leader in music as well. Otherwise, you'll have days when you're playing Beethoven while your husband is playing Bach...in your example, you skipped the decision making process and jumped to the execution. You still have to decide what to play. In your example, it's OK to say "Do you want Beethoven?" and run down a list of composers until you find one you do agree to...it might be 10th choice for both of you, but you'd a agree...not a problem in music, but what about in real life? Some things have only one choice, such as "Do we attend church together or stay home?" Tenth choice down the line doesn't make it..there are two options, someone must decide.

That sounds like the scenario of two selfish and immature people and not two people working toward one goal in love and with maturity. If they are acting like that, there's nothing to lead me to believe that one will lead maturely and one will submit maturely.

 

[dallasapple]

I had a woman snarl at me once for opening the door for her, I was in Connecticut

Well that proves it..it must be a rampant societal problem then..couldnt have been a particular woman in a nasty mood..

Let me ask you ..how old are you ..and how many times do you think you have opened doors for a woman and in how many states have you done so?

Now remember..you have "once' had a woman "snarl" at you in Conectticut when you answer that..

Oh and I MORE than once had a 'man" rush in front of me and act like he would ram my car to get a parking space that I was waiting for..All of those were in Texas though..I chocked it up to "rude person syndrome"..Not some "gender' war...

Dallas

 

[dallasapple]

That sounds like the scenario of two selfish and immature people and not two people working toward one goal in love and with maturity. If they are acting like that, there's nothing to lead me to believe that one will lead maturely and one will submit maturely.

I agree..and not only that..there is a 3rd option ..on the church thing..it goes like this.."Im going to church.want to join me"..Yes? GREAT lets go..or "No?Allright ..I will miss you but Im heading out..see you when I get back.

Dallas

 

[ex-pat]

You can't work towards a goal without defining the goal, and you can't decide how to reach that goal without determining the steps to take along the way. No one can go through life without a decision-making process, and often in that process, people disagree. When they disagree about important things, a choice must be made. One, the other, or neither.

 

[jehoiakim]

leading is also just about "making a final decision" it is leading the conversation, making sure everything is addressed and in a constructive manner, not a manipulative or negative manner, making sure everyone's needs and concerns are met and motivations are analyzed.

 

[EmilyF]

You can't work towards a goal without defining the goal, and you can't decide how to reach that goal without determining the steps to take along the way. No one can go through life without a decision-making process, and often in that process, people disagree. When they disagree about important things, a choice must be made. One, the other, or neither.

Who said that those of us that don't see men as head don't have a decision making process? That doesn't even make an sense. There's also room for, "one, the other, or let's discuss this more, pray and try to see the other's view. People who are working toward the same goal, are going to work to agree.

 

[JanniGirl]

If it's something as simple as should we go to church today or not? -- Yeah, each should work with the other to make a decision and if their decisions don't match up, one is left at home and the other goes to church.

With bigger decisions more compromise is needed. I entered a partnership. I'm no vice-president, but instead, a 50/50 partner with the same voting and decision making rights as my spouse. When 2 people go into business together, I don't know of one company that assigned one 50% stakeholder the vice-president role and the other 50% stakeholder the president role. That doesn't make any business sense at all. What business do you know of where there was a true 50/50 investment and one person decided to step down and allow the other person to make all the decisions, just because? That really defies logic.

So, the only assumption I can make is that for those who would have the wife be the vice-president, it is assumed that she brings less to the marriage than her husband .....

 

[dallasapple]

You can't work towards a goal without defining the goal, and you can't decide how to reach that goal without determining the steps to take along the way. No one can go through life without a decision-making process, and often in that process, people disagree. When they disagree about important things, a choice must be made. One, the other, or neither.

Right..and there is NO reason why ONE spouse gets to make a DECISION for the other one in every disagreement over the eniterety of their LIVES..NONE..but especially if ALL its based on is GENDER.

Dallas

 

[dallasapple]

If it's something as simple as should we go to church today or not? -- Yeah, each should work with the other to make a decision and if their decisions don't match up, one is left at home and the other goes to church.

With bigger decisions more compromise is needed. I entered a partnership. I'm no vice-president, but instead, a 50/50 partner with the same voting and decision making rights as my spouse. When 2 people go into business together, I don't know of one company that assigned one 50% stakeholder the vice-president role and the other 50% stakeholder the president role. That doesn't make any business sense at all. What business do you know of where there was a true 50/50 investment and one person decided to step down and allow the other person to make all the decisions, just because? That really defies logic.

So, the only assumption I can make is that for those who would have the wife be the vice-president, it is assumed that she brings less to the marriage than her husband .....

Exactly..the ASSUMPTION would have to be made if the analogy of "business" where one is the president and one is vice ..to marriage..that the WIFE just because she female mind you ..has LESS invested therfore she is "lowered" to a position of "yes very important" but "ultimately" the husband has veto power becasue he MUST have "more " invested..more to lose..or is better or more able bodied..it woudl have to be one of those two..hes "more qualified" therfore she "needs him to protect her OWN investment for her...or she has less invested to start with than he is..

Dallas