Discussion of Submission- Trial Thread

[sdmsanjose]

By Hanna
Personally, if the relationship is working for the parties involved in the marriage? I say KUDO'S for them, and I pray it stays that way. I personally don't care if they label themselves legal or comp if the relationship is flourishing.

The big thing to me is that he knows I love and respect him. If he feels that? The rest is just gravy.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Great conclusion and that is an attitude that I employ most of the time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My marriage in regards to the submission topic is smewhat like what Inkachu stated in her earlier post. I will be honest and say that I have not looked into the Ephesians Love/submission verse or the other verses a whole lot. The reason for this is that my wife and I have almost no trouble with the Love/submission as we understand the scriptures. However, I am inclined, by reading the Bible, to suspect that the “submission” that is in the Bible refers to the wife submitting to the husband when the husband has a strong message from God about mostly spiritual matters. I do not think that God intended for the husband to be the leader in ALL areas as the wife is better in some. I also believe that God uses the wife to lead in the spiritual category sometimes. However, in the Bible it is mostly the husband/man that God uses to lead spiritually.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In my marriage it is my responsibility to set the example for our children and family in how a spiritual leader should lead his life. This leading involves me setting the example with how I love my wife, family, and others and how I put God first in my life. I have failed at this on several occasions but have improved as time goes on. I still struggle with this spiritual responsibility from time to time. I was severely hurt by someone that did me terribly wrong and I knew that God would want me to forgive and restore. I was faced with being a spiritual leader and let me tell you it is a super challenging event that I am called upon to complete. Being a leader sometimes requires you to do things that you would rather avoid.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There have been times when a crisis in the family has happened and I knew that it was me that had to take the lead to deal with the crises. That usually involved me looking at my own spiritual commitment and condition and then getting back to paying more attention to God and following His ways. Often being a leader involves you improving yourself so that your can lead properly. For me, most of the time, being a leader is no picnic and sure is not an ego booster. Yes at times it requires the leader to confront or admonish and I get no kick out of that either. Finally, there are times that my wife has lead me to correct my spiritual position and condition. As a leader and spiritual example I am to accept that correction and tell those that I’m responsible for that I failed and have been corrected and will do better.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For those that think that being a leader is bossing your wife around or making all the decisions; well I just do not think there is any wisdom in that at all. Being a spiritual leader is at times such a stressful situation that you think you are going to sweat blood. In many cases being a leader is a real humbling experience and one that I would rather pass along to someone else.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I think the only way allowing submission to be talked about on here is if there was a rule that stated "When someone asks about it, you are allowed to post your view on it. However you are not allowed to reply to any other posts that you disagree with." Because thats the biggest problem. Everyone to busy telling everyone else why they are wrong.

It should be like voting at an election. You cast your vote and then go home. Or in this case you post your view and then ignore any other post that may be a different view because it only starts and endless debate in which everyone is drawn in. And in the end the original question gets lost in translation, all the topics end the same. I'm not sure what is so hard about ignoring the "reply" button if you see someone who disagrees.

Better yet if you respond to someone who has a differing view maybe just get a warning infraction since your stirring the pot. With one exception of if the TC asks you to expand your view based on a previous answer you had.

 

[mkgal1]

I just came across something the Pope had said (and found it also applicable here):

Don’t proselytise; respect others’ beliefs. “We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyses: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytising,” the Pope said.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Why use the word "blustering" here as a negative impression of how egalitarian marriages work? We quietly compromise - no blustering required.

The blustering was in reference to discussions here, not the actual compromising.

Why not just tell you that you're being selfish rather than 'unsubmissive'. Everyone gets selfish. My husband also gets selfish. We both give each other reminders because, hey, we're both human and faulty. He has no god-like perfection.

Because being selfish is only one part of it.

So you speak for God, eh. Interesting. I've fulfilled a Godly role for a long time now, and you don't get to say otherwise.

Well, that escalated quickly. I didn't say I spoke for God. I know what the bible says, though. I base my opinion on that.

If you want to be offended by that, it's your choice.

 

[mkgal1]

The blustering was in reference to discussions here, not the actual compromising.

This is the context of the way "blustering" was used:

In an egalitarian relationship, when you cannot agree, what happens? And I mean after all the blustering about compromise is done. What if you want A and you won't budge, and he wants B, and he won't budge?

To me....that sounds as if you're referring to the couple blustering (especially with both not willing to budge). That's not egalitarian---that sounds like two selfish and narrow-minded people to me.

In the earlier post I'd made (with the linked article) this is from the article about the question of making difficult decisions together sans hierarchy:

Dan and I are often asked by complementarians how, without a hierarchal structure, we make difficult life decisions together. “When push comes to shove,” they ask, “who gets the final call?”

We never really know how to respond to this question because, frankly we don’t do a lot of “pushing and shoving” in our relationship. We’ve never reached the great hypothetical impasse that folks seem so curious about. Even when we disagree, we find compromises based on multiple factors, not a gender-based trump card. After nearly nine years, this team-based approach does not seem to have had any negative consequences on our marriage. If anything, I’d say it has strengthened it. I can’t speak for every egalitarian marriage, of course, but I can honestly report that our marriage is a happy one.

and more from that article that bears repeating. This misconception:

“Egalitarians don’t take the Bible seriously.”

I confess this one kinda gets under my skin, so much so that I wrote a post about it last year entitled “Complementarians are selective too.” Here’s an excerpt from what I say there:

Complementarians often say that what’s at stake in this debate is the authority of Scripture, an authority that is compromised whenever Christians fail to live by “every word” of the Bible. But Piper’s response reveals that not even complementarians live by every word of the Bible. Complementarians do not require women to cover their heads in prayer (1 Corinthians 11:5), or remain entirely silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Timothy 2:12) or abstain from wearing jewelry (1 Peter 3:3), or abide by the Levitical Purity Laws that make them ceremonially unclean during their periods.

We need to get to a point in this debate where we can start with the presupposition that 1) both Christian complementarians and Christian egalitarians respect the authority of Scripture, and 2) both complementarians and egalitarians are selective in their application of Scripture.

We don’t disagree on the value of Scripture; we disagree on exactly how to apply it.

This is not mere “picking and choosing.” Our rationales for selectivity are often thoughtful and reasoned. I think most complementarians would agree that Christians don’t need to live by “every word” of the Bible, that there are things to consider like Old Law vs. New Law, universal commands vs. culturally specific commands. We are all selective, so let’s stop accusing those who select differently than we do of usurping the authority of Scripture.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This is the context of the way "blustering" was used:

To me....that sounds as if you're referring to the couple blustering (especially with both not willing to budge). That's not egalitarian---that sounds like two selfish and narrow-minded people to me.

Which is why I clarified what I meant. In the past when I've brought this point up people go on about compromise, which is great but...

there WILL be points where neither partner wants to budge. In my marraige, this is when I defer to my husband. Not because I think he is better than me or smarter than me, but because I TRUST him and know that any decision he makes is going to be for the good of us and our family. He hasn't let me down yet so...

I simply don't believe the Bible teaches us to be in an egalitarian marriage. I see the Bible gives us different roles in our marriages and when those roles are usurped then I see problems in marriages.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

MOST folks in marriage learn to compromise. There shouldn't ever be a point where one has the "final say" over another's objections.

But, that's part of being a grown-up. I'm glad you trust your husband like that but I don't see me ever doing that...ever.

 

[mkgal1]

"Compromise" is such a tricky word (IMO).....often it means that either BOTH people are dissatisfied (each sacrificing in some way) or one is pleased at the expense of the other. I don't think either of those outcomes are "good" and something to aspire to (which is why I'd mentioned "enthusiastic mutual agreement"). BOTH spouses have to be sincerely pleased with the decision (and, like I'd said, that's possible if both are truly interested in obtaining that and willing to actually hear the other's opinions and desires).

 

[RedPonyDriver]

"Compromise" is such a tricky word (IMO).....often it means that either BOTH people are dissatisfied (each sacrificing in some way) or one is pleased at the expense of the other. I don't think either of those outcomes are "good" and something to aspire to (which is why I'd mentioned "enthusiastic mutual agreement"). BOTH spouses have to be sincerely pleased with the decision (and, like I'd said, that's possible if both are truly interested in obtaining that and willing to actually hear the other's opinions and desires).

I don't think I necessarily agree here...there will be times when one person has to put themselves aside for the other for some reason. Sometimes you're the giver and sometimes you're the taker. Unless of course you're married to my STBX...then you're always the giver and he's always the taker

 

[mkgal1]

I don't think I necessarily agree here...there will be times when one person has to put themselves aside for the other for some reason. Sometimes you're the giver and sometimes you're the taker. Unless of course you're married to my STBX...then you're always the giver and he's always the taker

Maybe it depends on what the decision is....but my husband and I have had some win/win solutions that wouldn't have been achieved if we were to just kind of take turns at yielding to the other's desire (instead...we came up with solutions that weren't even thought of originally....out of a need for both to be satisfied).

The Policy of Joint Agreement also avoids the worst advice of our Giver and Taker. In the state of Intimacy, we are encouraged by our Giver to sacrifice our own happiness so that the other person can be happy. In the state of Conflict, we are encouraged by our Taker to let our spouses sacrifice so that we can be happy. Neither of these are worthy objectives because in both cases someone gets hurt.

In marriage, your interests and your spouses interests should be considered simultaneously. One of you should not suffer for the benefit of the other, even willingly, because when either of you suffer, one is gaining at the other's expense. If you both care about each other, you will not let the other suffer so that you can have what you want. When you are willing to let the other sacrifice for you, you are momentarily lapsing into a state of selfishness that must somehow be corrected before damage is done. The Policy of Joint Agreement provides that correction.~The Policy of Joint Agreement

 

[HannahT]

Which is why I clarified what I meant. In the past when I've brought this point up people go on about compromise, which is great but...

there WILL be points where neither partner wants to budge. In my marraige, this is when I defer to my husband. Not because I think he is better than me or smarter than me, but because I TRUST him and know that any decision he makes is going to be for the good of us and our family. He hasn't let me down yet so...

I simply don't believe the Bible teaches us to be in an egalitarian marriage. I see the Bible gives us different roles in our marriages and when those roles are usurped then I see problems in marriages.

I think what you said is fine. I think its awesome that you trust your husband, and he hasn't let you down in that department. I really do.

We haven't ever - that I remember - come to a point where neither partner wants to budge. One of us usually does after much discussion, and negotiations. My husband has said on more than one occasion that we tend to go with what I was gearing towards, because of the same reasons you mentioned about your husband. He trusts me, and he knows I do things for the best of my family...and I have never heard him stating I have let him down. He appreciates the way my mind works, and allows it work for the best of our family.

That role reversal works for us in that sense just as your way works for you. I don't find myself ursurping anything - that is just how we are comfortable with our dynamics.

I think that is because I tend to be more mellow yellow, and over think things at times. I run past all the circumstances, and mull it around constantly.

He tends to shoot from the hip, and think up solutions after the shot has gone off. Its NOT bad - it just his personally. He will also fully admit that has got him in loads of hot water in the past when it come to touchy circumstances. Don't get me wrong - there are times when its needed! That's where we get him BLOW!

He helps me get more spontaneous at times, because I tend to want to work all the angles to see what is best for all. He reminds me at times it doesn't matter - those NOT so big issues - so lets just GO for IT! lol so we do!

He jokingly refers to me as 'the boss'. I'm not the boss by any strength of the imagination, but I do tend to make more the decisions. I also discuss those with him prior as well. I think I'm more of the 'idea comer upper person' in the family!

I won't even go into circumstances in which trust is not present for good reasons - like we both have (trust in our relationships) - and people are told to bend into the roles to make it better. Logic gets thrown out the window, because we aren't dealing with the issue at all. We ignore it for proper roles instead. I see major issues there too for marriages.

I think we both respect and honor what God would want for our relationships.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

MOST folks in marriage learn to compromise. There shouldn't ever be a point where one has the "final say" over another's objections. But, that's part of being a grown-up. I'm glad you trust your husband like that but I don't see me ever doing that...ever.

Then I feel sorry for you. Trust is one of the most important thing In a marriage. If you believe you will never trust someone like that I suggest you not get remarried, nor get back together with the loser you kicked out.

 

[LinkH]

Sdmsanjose wrote something in agreement with Ikachu in relation to wives submitting to husbands when the husband has direction from God. But notice Peter in I Peter 4 tells wives to submit to husbands even if they don't obey the word, and Paul in Ephesians 5 tells wives to submit to their husbands in everything.

I was looking over the recent posts about the idea that the wife submits when she and her husband can't see eye to eye. A lot of the posts seem to focus on conflict. He wants this. She wants that. They argue and struggle. Finally, through her grit teeth with a scowl on her face, she says, "Okay, I'll submit to you."

That's not the idea of submission. If a wife submits to her husband, she has an attitude of the heart that allows her to accept decision over things like this without gritting her teeth or scowling or conflict. They may not agree on everything.

As a husband, I love my wife, and I am commanded to do so. I Corinthians 7 says that the man who marries seeks to please his wife and the woman who marries seeks to please her husband. This is a normal thing for married people. And it definitely plays a role when decision making comes into play.

My wife knows she must submit to me. I know that I must love her. A while back, she wanted a different vehicle. I didn't really want to bother with getting one due to business and finances. But there were some legitimate concerns about the old van, and we could use a new one. Pleasing her became a big factor for me in making the decision. But I could have insisted and let her submit to me on the issue.

The headship and submission thing doesn't have to be a battlefield. Women do need to submit to their husbands. They need to have a submissive respectful attitude for the marriage to operate the way it should, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church. Men need to love their wives in a self-sacrificial way and to treat them with the proper honor so that the relationship between Christ and the church can be properly reflected in the marriage. Submission is largely an attitude of the heart. If we depart from God's design on this, we'll face problems in our marriages.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It was your phrasing I objected to...not to mention you seem just a wee bit smug at times. Thank God I don't know people like you IRL..

Phrasing? how does one phrase "I feel sorry for you" in a different way? How does one recommend not getting remarried or getting rid of the loser you kicked out differently?

People like me? My goodness will you just stop and listen to yourself for a moment??

 

[mkgal1]

I'm listening to her (BTW) and I can say that I have the same impression (that there was a smugness in the way things were phrased). "Condescending" is the word that comes to mind. IMO....there's no reason to "feel sorry" for someone that doesn't believe a person should be run roughshod over with the "final say" card (the way it was phrased was, "There shouldn't ever be a point where one has the "final say" over another's objections."). That goes beyond the necessary level of trust for a relationship. Why would you even phrase that as a relationship in the first place? It's one person directing the other (when it's against one's objections--which is the key phrase). There's nothing dynamic about that (IMO). That sort of renders the other person unnecessary.....doesn't it (if they don't really have "say" in the long run)?

How is that different than "man being alone" (what our creator said "isn't good")? He's without influence by the one person that's living in the closest vicinity (the one behind those closed doors).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I feel sorry for wives who cannot trust their husbands.

That is what I said.

If you choose to read more into it then that is your problem and not mine. I have not been smug nor condescending here although I disagree with a good number of posters. I have stated MY beliefs.

I STILL feel sorry for women who cannot trust their husbands.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

And no one has said how to phrase that differently.

 

[mkgal1]

I feel sorry for wives who cannot trust their husbands.

That is what I said.

If you choose to read more into it then that is your problem and not mine. I have not been smug nor condescending here although I disagree with a good number of posters. I have stated MY beliefs.

I STILL feel sorry for women who cannot trust their husbands.

It's all up there in post #72 what was said. What you responded to *wasn't* RPD saying she couldn't trust her husband---she said, "There shouldn't ever be a point where one has the "final say" over another's objections" and added, "I don't ever see me doing that" and said she's happy for you that it's worked out for you. There's no reason to feel sorry for her that she's not okay with having her objections dismissed and ignored.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's all up there in post #72 what was said. What you responded to *wasn't* RPD saying she couldn't trust her husband---she said, "There shouldn't ever be a point where one has the "final say" over another's objections" and added, "I don't ever see me doing that" and said she's happy for you that it's worked out for you. There's no reason to feel sorry for her that she's not okay with having her objections dismissed and ignored.

What? Who said anything about having objections dismissed and ignored? That is NOT what happens in a scripturally-submissive marriage!!

I'm beginning to see why this topic was banned.

 

[mkgal1]

What? Who said anything about having objections dismissed and ignored? That is NOT what happens in a scripturally-submissive marriage!!

I'm beginning to see why this topic was banned.

That's what you were responding to when you said you felt sorry for RPD for not ever seeing herself being okay with that (it's there for you to see).

"Final say" over another's objections = "having objections dismissed and ignored".

I've been putting "over another's objections" in bold text for a few posts thinking maybe you were missing that part.