Discussion of Submission- Trial Thread

[PreachersWife2004]

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.

But whoever said anything about "final say over another's objections"??

I know I talked about "no budging", but I never said anything about over another's objections. That was something she brought to the table.

I went from talking about trusting my husband to her thinking that meant I was dismissed and ignored and you wonder why my head is spinning?

I mean, seriously, this is what I posted:

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 wish people would STOP reading into something based on their incorrect notions about what being submissive means.

And, mkgal, I appreciate you taking the time to explain why you thought what you did, but I find it interesting that while you feel it necessary to take me to task for sounding smug, you haven't said boo to Red Pony about her "butter doesn't melt" post to me. Or how she's glad she doesn't know ANYONE LIKE ME in real life. Or is being mean okay for certain people in your mind?

 

[LilLamb219]

How about a 24 hour thread cool down?

PM me if I forget to open it back up, please? Or another Mod!

OOPS...reopened!!!

 

[mkgal1]

Thanks, LilLamb for re-opening this thread.

I wanted to address how the impression may be (from the egalitarian side) that the complementarian side may believe that decisions may be made with the wife (since she's not the one with "final say" and, by default, is the one to get "over-ruled") less than fully enthusiastic about the choice made (but it's noble for her to die to her "selfishness" and submit). That's how I (personally) often see how "submission" is expected to be from this perspective.

I think it's when the whole objection is raised in the first place. When the question is asked (and phrased in these ways)....."what about when neither party is willing to budge?"....."what about when 'push comes to shove'?"........how is it settled then? It's also been said in this thread that it's not believed that it's possible for a marriage to be "truly egalitarian"......and I wonder why that's believed?

Bottom line......I'm of the belief that whether a couple identifies as egalitarian or complementarian (a hierarchy in marriage--with the husband as the "leader") decisions *should* be made with both parties in mind.....right? What I posted from Dr. Harley (about joint agreement policy) can also be considered as a husband loving his wife.....right? So why the disagreement? Everyone *should* agree that the process be basically the same (as I see it). There should be no 'I'm not budging"......and "my way is the *right* way" in either model. IOW.....there should be no allowance made for selfish ambition or pride--no matter what a couple labels themselves as. Why can't we all agree on that?

 

[mkgal1]

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.

I don't believe you could do so and still make the claim that it's loving her like Christ (the insisting). But....that's just my opinion.

That's an example of where I get the impression of "final say over another's objections" comes from (and you, Link, aren't alone in your description of how this "works". That seems to be a great description of this belief).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'll give you an example:

In the last year I've been trying to get my husband to get us a GOOD used car and not a clunker. At every turn he's reminded me that finances are not where they need to be. Every time I thought I had a good deal but our finances were just not in the right place. I cried, I fought, I told him he was being a miser. I was not a nice wife, to put it bluntly.

Fast forward to this summer. I asked him to meet me at a dealership to look at a relatively new car at a decent price. He agreed. When we met there, though, the car in question was not at that lot. I asked him if we could go over to the Ford lot to look at a comparable car. He agree.

While there, I noticed one of the cars I had been asking him about recently. We hadn't really talked price on this one, though. I said "let's at least take it for a test drive".

During the test drive my husband told the salesperson that if they could get us down to XX monthly payment with no payment down, we'd take the car. Sure as shootin, when we got back the saleperson had already gotten us the rate we needed AND he took an additional $1500 off the price.

I asked Matt at home what changed - and he said a few things. Our finances were still pretty much the same but I had made some passing remarks about being willing to sacrifice in order to make sure we were driving decent cars. Also, he had crunched more numbers to get to the monthly figure he told the salesperson. If the guy hadn't gotten us down to that rate, we wouldn't have bought the car.

Throughout it all, I WANTED A NEW CAR. I never budged on that. I fought hard for that. I got mad about it. But ultimately, because I TRUST my husband to do what is right for our family, I ended up being the one to back down. Sure, I could've gone and got a car on my own - I've known a few wives who have done that in the name of independence - but that would've been usurping his authority. I believe that because my husband acted in the role that God gave him, and I worked within my role (while I wasn't the nicest wifey about it, I didn't go out and buy my own car) we ultimately were blessed with the ability to get a new car.

and no, Link and I are not married.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

TBottom line......I'm of the belief that whether a couple identifies as egalitarian or complementarian (a hierarchy in marriage--with the husband as the "leader") decisions *should* be made with both parties in mind.....right? What I posted from Dr. Harley (about joint agreement policy) can also be considered as a husband loving his wife.....right? So why the disagreement? Everyone *should* agree that the process be basically the same (as I see it). There should be no 'I'm not budging"......and "my way is the *right* way" in either model. IOW.....there should be no allowance made for selfish ambition or pride--no matter what a couple labels themselves as. Why can't we all agree on that?

and to double down and address this point - husbands who are working within their role ARE actively listening to their wives and taking their opinions, needs and wants into consideration.

Not budging doesn't mean the guy is being a prick about the whole thing. At least for us, it means there's a valid reason why my husband feels so strongly about something. It's not a "my way is the right way".

This is probably so many people do not fully understand biblical submission - again, you seem to put too many secular principles to it that just aren't there.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I do that the easy way...If I want a new car and have the money, I go buy it. Something about a career and decent salary. Don't need to talk to anyone, don't need to "crunch numbers" because I know exactly what the bills are every month and I have no debt. I'm waiting for a certain car to come down to what I'm willing to pay. When it does...you can bet I'll be there with a cashier's check. That's how I bought my last three or four cars.

Now...if only I could stop my American Muscle, Late Model Restoration, Summit and Edelbrock addictions...

 

[ValleyGal]

Beckie, I can certainly see your point, and I think that works well for some women, when they have husbands that are trustworthy. Unfortunately, trustworthiness is a rare quality, and many men can't be trusted to do what is right for their family. Trust is earned. It usually starts well at the beginning of a relationship or marriage, but over time, if a woman learns she can't trust him to make choices that are in the family's best interest, then she will have an impossible time submitting to him.

Years ago, when I was in relationship with a boyfriend, I trusted him so much that I would have followed him to the ends of the earth if he'd led me there. Many years after he died, I married a man who proved he could not be trusted during the first month, and I left very quickly (for physical abuse). I would not have submitted or followed him to the driveway if my life depended on it. Today, I absolutely trust my husband to protect the integrity of our family, and to make decisions that are in my best interest - and this is based on a proven record of consistently making decisions for our best rather than for his own. But one of the reasons I trust him is also the fact that he also trusts me to make decisions based on his best interest. This is the process of mutual influence, and it works for us.

But not all people are trustworthy. Not all should be trusted. There are women who have submitted to husbands who are not trustworthy, who use submission as a form of oppression and servitude, or who seek to serve self rather than the benefits of his wife or children. This is why, imo, mutual submission works...there is no imbalance of power, or opportunity for abuse of power. This is also why couples need to figure out what works for them. You have worked out what works for you and your husband in your marriage. And I consider myself fortunate to have married an egalitarian who trusts my decisions as much as I trust his.

And yes, I think a lot of submission issues happen because the biblical understanding is lost....as a wife, it is up to me to submit to my husband, not up to him to tell me that I need to submit. But he also recognizes that it is his responsibility as a husband, to love me - and for him, this means placing my needs above his own. In our house, love and submission are synonymous.

 

[mkgal1]

I'll give you an example:

In the last year I've been trying to get my husband to get us a GOOD used car and not a clunker. At every turn he's reminded me that finances are not where they need to be. Every time I thought I had a good deal but our finances were just not in the right place. I cried, I fought, I told him he was being a miser. I was not a nice wife, to put it bluntly.

Fast forward to this summer. I asked him to meet me at a dealership to look at a relatively new car at a decent price. He agreed. When we met there, though, the car in question was not at that lot. I asked him if we could go over to the Ford lot to look at a comparable car. He agree.

While there, I noticed one of the cars I had been asking him about recently. We hadn't really talked price on this one, though. I said "let's at least take it for a test drive".

During the test drive my husband told the salesperson that if they could get us down to XX monthly payment with no payment down, we'd take the car. Sure as shootin, when we got back the saleperson had already gotten us the rate we needed AND he took an additional $1500 off the price.

I asked Matt at home what changed - and he said a few things. Our finances were still pretty much the same but I had made some passing remarks about being willing to sacrifice in order to make sure we were driving decent cars. Also, he had crunched more numbers to get to the monthly figure he told the salesperson. If the guy hadn't gotten us down to that rate, we wouldn't have bought the car.

Throughout it all, I WANTED A NEW CAR. I never budged on that. I fought hard for that. I got mad about it. But ultimately, because I TRUST my husband to do what is right for our family, I ended up being the one to back down. Sure, I could've gone and got a car on my own - I've known a few wives who have done that in the name of independence - but that would've been usurping his authority. I believe that because my husband acted in the role that God gave him, and I worked within my role (while I wasn't the nicest wifey about it, I didn't go out and buy my own car) we ultimately were blessed with the ability to get a new car.

How is that different than what I'd posted about joint agreement (with the exception of crying, fighting, and name-calling)? What that policy is about is BOTH spouses being in agreement with the decision (and the details). Isn't that what you two did---arrived at an agreement, where both were satisfied with the decision? That's no different than my husband and myself.

We went through this about a year ago, in fact....but he was the one suggesting that it was time that I get a new(er) car. We'd been looking for a while, and I was about to settle for one car, getting tired of the hunt.... but he actually suggested that I wait for exactly what I wanted (we were buying used, and it wasn't looking very good). I knew his point was valid about how I'd eventually be disappointed or regret that decision, because that first car wasn't what I really wanted and he didn't think I should settle. There was no reason to be upset with him.....I knew we both had the same goal in mind and he was just encouraging me to not settle for less than I really wanted. Two weeks later, exactly the car I wanted (and then some) came available (at a great price, too). That's what I mean about "enthusiastic mutual agreement". We're able to arrive at those sorts of decisions (without argument or tension) all the time. If we're both not in agreement....we keep looking for other options.

 

[mkgal1]

and to double down and address this point - husbands who are working within their role ARE actively listening to their wives and taking their opinions, needs and wants into consideration.

Then why is the main question that's asked about the "what happens when no one is willing to budge"? Neither should be fixed on a solution (decision) until everything is brought to the table (IMO). That's what teams/partners do---make decisions together---as one.

Not budging doesn't mean the guy is being a prick about the whole thing. At least for us, it means there's a valid reason why my husband feels so strongly about something. It's not a "my way is the right way".

This is probably so many people do not fully understand biblical submission - again, you seem to put too many secular principles to it that just aren't there.

So far you've not described anything that's different than how my husband and I make decisions.....soooo....I'm kind of confused what there's even disagreement about (other than terminology).

What "secular principles" am I adding that just aren't there? And what is the harm of what I've added (if there's anything).

This is probably so many people do not fully understand biblical submission

I'm not confused about biblical submission, but I am confused as to why you believe your version is a different variety than an egalitarian couple's version when you seem to be describing the same thing (especially when you qualify that men who follow a hierarchical model listen and take into consideration their wive's opinions and desires). What's the distinction then?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I have a question...
What is so wrong about "secular" principles? Does EVERYTHING have to be "bible based"? It seems that people are missing out on a lot of good information and ideas when they put their "bible filter" on. Just because something doesn't mention God doesn't mean its not good or worthwhile.

Maybe that's why I've never been able to be a "real" Christian. I don't think everything has to go through some filter other than an ability to think about the information and see if it applies to the particular situation, idea or whatever.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I have a question... What is so wrong about "secular" principles? Does EVERYTHING have to be "bible based"? It seems that people are missing out on a lot of good information and ideas when they put their "bible filter" on. Just because something doesn't mention God doesn't mean its not good or worthwhile. Maybe that's why I've never been able to be a "real" Christian. I don't think everything has to go through some filter other than an ability to think about the information and see if it applies to the particular situation, idea or whatever.

I'm a Christian. My doctrines come from the bible. When secular principles contradict the bible I go with what the bible says.

I've stated my beliefs and there's really nothing more to say. I forget that is section isn't a Christian only section so dealing with theological principles is going to be difficult.

 

[HannahT]

I'm not confused about biblical submission, but I am confused as to why you believe your version is a different variety than an egalitarian couple's version when you seem to be describing the same thing (especially when you qualify that men who follow a hierarchical model listen and take into consideration their wive's opinions and desires). What's the distinction then?

I think people get too caught up in labels personally.

Then you have the differing versions of what the label means, and then you have another can of worms to deal with.

These labels nowadays get treated just the secular labels do. It can mean all kinds of things today, and yet when you look at the Webster's dictionary none of them truly fulfill the definition.

I mean if you look at the way most people use the term 'racist' today? You have to wonder when the term changed it's meaning. Its the same thing when people mention feminism. Heck, just look what they have done to the term 'tolerance'?! You wouldn't even recognize it today!

I have to admit when I started to learn about the terms egal or comp? My first in impression was, 'What in the WORLD?!" I mean one side was treating the other like they were slave masters, and the other side was claiming people are walking around like genderless blobs - not understanding they were a man or woman.

It's popular to today to claim that people in one belief system can't make decisions because of views towards equality. They look at it as a Math equation almost, and apply to human relationships so it looks unreasonable. Then you have the other side taking a very small concept in the bible, and (last word for example) turning it into micro management of all aspects of life is acceptable.

We do the same thing the world does, and wonder why we are just as confused on some levels as they are. Their both rather dumb IMO.

The whole thing is silly, but if you hear these extremes enough? Human nature tends to think it must be so.

That's why I don't do labels for the most part. Their dumb. I think I tend to be in middle somewhere - minus the stereotypes that used to slam the other side - and I find my comfortable seat. My H feels the same way.

When the faith community stops playing the label game with all its stereotypes it will be able to move forward. Until then? Circular debates that go nowhere is continue to be the norm. You will never be able to see the similarities...because according to the stereotypes we are taught it just can't be so.

 

[ValleyGal]

I read this in an article today on familyshare.com:

The spirit of entitlement smothers love, but the spirit of gratitude lets love soar. It's the difference between taking and receiving.

I immediately thought about the idea of men expecting their wives to submit, and calling them on it - iow, suggesting that their wife is being disobedient to God by not submitting to him. That reeks of the spirit of entitlement, that the husband is entitled to have a woman submit just because he is the man and for no other reason. This kind of man "takes" submission from his wife, but instead, his marriage would flourish if he does not have that entitlement, but has a sense of gratitude when she does submit - because the whole point of submission is that it comes entirely from the one doing it. It is internally motivated, not externally expected by husbands who have a sense of entitlement.

I think this nicely nails it for me and IDay....I recognize when he has "loved" me - such as when he moved 3000 miles and out of country to be with me because me moving there would not have been good for me or my son. His decision was submitting himself to my best interest. And I repeatedly expressed my gratitude. And he also recognizes when I submit to his best interests, like giving him the space he needed when he had to do 2 intensive master's level courses at once, even though I felt like I needed him... he needed space more than I needed emotional support. And he is grateful when I submit to his best interest. And this is why our love soars.

ETA - taking something starts with the assumption it belongs to you. Receiving it starts with the assumption it belongs to them. For submission, a husband taking it expects that it is her "role" to submit to him and that he can therefore motivate submission. But a husband who receives submission recognizes that it is internally motivated by her and her alone, that it is hers to give.... and that is biblical submission.

 

[ValleyGal]

At one time, science said the world was flat, but the Bible describes it as an orb. Was science right then, too?

PW is talking about principles for living, not making theological warfare. She is entitled to hold a literalist view (if that is the case) and believe in biblical authority. There are perfectly reasonable and sound arguments for each of your points, but this is not the place or the thread to discuss them....this one is about submission.

 

[mkgal1]

I read this in an article today on familyshare.com:
I immediately thought about the idea of men expecting their wives to submit, and calling them on it - iow, suggesting that their wife is being disobedient to God by not submitting to him. That reeks of the spirit of entitlement, that the husband is entitled to have a woman submit just because he is the man and for no other reason. This kind of man "takes" submission from his wife, but instead, his marriage would flourish if he does not have that entitlement, but has a sense of gratitude when she does submit - because the whole point of submission is that it comes entirely from the one doing it. It is internally motivated, not externally expected by husbands who have a sense of entitlement.


ETA - taking something starts with the assumption it belongs to you. Receiving it starts with the assumption it belongs to them. For submission, a husband taking it expects that it is her "role" to submit to him and that he can therefore motivate submission. But a husband who receives submission recognizes that it is internally motivated by her and her alone, that it is hers to give.... and that is biblical submission.

I agree. You're right---the assumption of it belonging to someone (the man, in this case)....definitely allows for selfishness & pride to exist. Personally, I just don't see how that's what God would want.

I love that quote, BTW, this one: "The spirit of entitlement smothers love, but the spirit of gratitude lets love soar." I think the verse applies that says, "You shall know them by their fruit". Truth brings life......our enemy's ways bring destruction.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

At one time, science said the world was flat, but the Bible describes it as an orb. Was science right then, too?

PW is talking about principles for living, not making theological warfare. She is entitled to hold a literalist view (if that is the case) and believe in biblical authority. There are perfectly reasonable and sound arguments for each of your points, but this is not the place or the thread to discuss them....this one is about submission.

Ok...how about stoning your child when they dishonor their parents? That's a good one to discuss because it also involves the submission of children to parents.

Scenario....
Kid does something stupid...like driving drunk or getting caught with some weed. Its in the newspaper. Parents are embarrassed and humiliated at what the kid did. Kid brought dishonor upon his parents. Biblically, he is supposed to be taken out and stoned. That's straight out of the bible. Who stones their kid for doing stuff like that now (not to mention its illegal).

This is my issue with being "bible-based" for everything. Take the principles (don't do stuff that will embarrass your parents), and leave the rest (don't stone your kid to death if they do something like that). I won't discuss what my oldest brother did during the streaking craze...but yeah, he embarrassed the daylights out of my parents.

 

[mkgal1]

I'm a Christian. My doctrines come from the bible. When secular principles contradict the bible I go with what the bible says.

I've stated my beliefs and there's really nothing more to say. I forget that is section isn't a Christian only section so dealing with theological principles is going to be difficult.

I completely agree with Hannah T that people get caught up in stereotypes and labels.

Every time this topic comes up, I've never gotten a succinct response as to what the distinction is between the two "camps" (just like now). That leaves me to guess. If it's that the wife's "vote" doesn't truly count in the end (oh I realize that the husband is to consider her opinions....to make sure he's making the choice out of love and all that--but, what it all comes down to in all this---he makes the final say it's what's held onto)---then I (personally) don't see that as biblical.

God said in the very beginning, "It's not good that man should be alone". I believe that's about a checks and balance system (of sorts)...accountability, IOW---so he can genuinely experience what love and compassion is all about.

 

[ValleyGal]

Ok...how about stoning your child when they dishonor their parents? That's a good one to discuss because it also involves the submission of children to parents.

Scenario....
Kid does something stupid...like driving drunk or getting caught with some weed. Its in the newspaper. Parents are embarrassed and humiliated at what the kid did. Kid brought dishonor upon his parents. Biblically, he is supposed to be taken out and stoned. That's straight out of the bible. Who stones their kid for doing stuff like that now (not to mention its illegal).

This is my issue with being "bible-based" for everything. Take the principles (don't do stuff that will embarrass your parents), and leave the rest (don't stone your kid to death if they do something like that). I won't discuss what my oldest brother did during the streaking craze...but yeah, he embarrassed the daylights out of my parents.

Yeahhh, I'm not going to take this off topic. Suffice it to say that the Bible needs to be taken into context of the whole and not cherry-picked. Even literalists know that.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

found something interesting regarding "submission"...

http://www.theduluthmodel.org/pdf/PowerandControl.pdf