Final Authority?

[Everlasting33]

I have a ton of friends. I don't think my girlfriends would appreciate the idea that I was the final authority in our relationships. It rings of parent/child dynamic. I can see how this might work out better in a marriage where one of the two involved tends to lack maturity and reasoning ability. I can also see this being fruitful when in a relationship with a destructive person (like a dependent family member).


It wouldn't make sense if the purpose is for the woman to have ultimate responsibility for the direction of the relationship. As others have stated, it depends on the issue. So, pick an issue (finances, education/career choices, etc).

Hmmm..you make a very good point about the friendships. Perhaps one could argue that relationships between the sexes does not need a authority figure like a company or sports team. I will have to use that one, thanks!

 

[cantata]

If final authority is implemented in all social units (assuming this is the correct way of social behavior), what about it makes it wrong in marriage?

I don’t think it’s wrong, as I said above.

I just don’t think it’s necessary for everyone, and personally, I don’t see the need for it.

 

[gwenmead]

A social unit encompasses all social behaviors...work, relationships, even sports teams. Every company has a head boss. Every sports team has a head coach. Every country has someone has a President. There is always someone who maintains the final authority, responsibility or accountability..or should!

Okay. Thanks for clarifying there. I think I see where you're going, more or less.

I disagree with your "every's", though.

Not every corporation has a head boss - some are co-operatives run by their members. A nation might have a president, but said president is not necessarily the final authority - in America, for instance, the president's power is mitigated by checks and balances from two other equally powerful branches of government.

Sports teams... okay, I'll give you sports teams, they do tend to have one guy running everything. As do military units.

Any social institution will have a hierarchical structure with a final authority if it is set up to be that way. But it doesn't have to be that way. Totalitarian systems will tend to have an authoritarian structure, while democratic systems will tend not to. Both work in their own ways.

I'll admit that I tend to prefer more democratic systems, as authoritarian ones tend to end with things like massive persecution of citizens, restrictions on freedom, one group or individual wielding power to the detriment of another, and so on. Generally speaking, anyway.

So, why should marriages be different?

Well, I'd say marriages aren't much different than other social institutions, in that some are authoritarian and some are egalitarian, and both can work, and I can't say in any absolute sense that all marriages should be one way or the other.

I know that my own marriage does not work as an authoritarian model. I will admit that I tend to think the egalitarian model is best, because too many times I've seen that the authoritarian model tends to end up with one partner abusing the other (usually the man abusing the woman, since the male-dominant version is the standard authoritarian model for marriage).

When it boils down to it, though, what one couple needs to do to make their marriage work is up to them; and they "should" do whatever they agree makes it work.

Generally speaking, anyway.

 

[Everlasting33]

I don’t think it’s wrong, as I said above.

I just don’t think it’s necessary for everyone, and personally, I don’t see the need for it.

Seeing that we both like to argue women issues, do you find it wrong that only a man can be a authority leader over his wife?

 

[quatona]

According to Christianity, God appointed men as the authority figures.

According to Christianity homosexuals should be put to death.

However, in Non Christian homes, how would one appoint a final authority figure?

*Assuming they are needed!

Fist fight?
Assumign they were needed, and further assuming that both partners are aware that they were needed, I guess they´d strive for appointing the authority by agreement (the paradoxy of this process would be mind-blowing, though, so we are back at fist fight or, IOW, might - physical strength - makes right).

I guess I´ll wait for the first good argument as to why in a two person relationship a "final authority" is needed. So far this is too hypothetical a discussion for me.

 

[Everlasting33]

Okay. Thanks for clarifying there. I think I see where you're going, more or less.

I disagree with your "every's", though.

Not every corporation has a head boss - some are co-operatives run by their members. A nation might have a president, but said president is not necessarily the final authority - in America, for instance, the president's power is mitigated by checks and balances from two other equally powerful branches of government.

Sports teams... okay, I'll give you sports teams, they do tend to have one guy running everything. As do military units.

Any social institution will have a hierarchical structure with a final authority if it is set up to be that way. But it doesn't have to be that way. Totalitarian systems will tend to have an authoritarian structure, while democratic systems will tend not to. Both work in their own ways.

I'll admit that I tend to prefer more democratic systems, as authoritarian ones tend to end with things like massive persecution of citizens, restrictions on freedom, one group or individual wielding power to the detriment of another, and so on. Generally speaking, anyway.



Well, I'd say marriages aren't much different than other social institutions, in that some are authoritarian and some are egalitarian, and both can work, and I can't say in any absolute sense that all marriages should be one way or the other.

I know that my own marriage does not work as an authoritarian model. I will admit that I tend to think the egalitarian model is best, because too many times I've seen that the authoritarian model tends to end up with one partner abusing the other (usually the man abusing the woman, since the male-dominant version is the standard authoritarian model for marriage).

When it boils down to it, though, what one couple needs to do to make their marriage work is up to them; and they "should" do whatever they agree makes it work.

Generally speaking, anyway.

Good post.

 

[cantata]

Seeing that we both like to argue women issues, do you find it wrong that only a man can be a authority leader over his wife?

I definitely strongly dislike the tradition of assuming that a man has final authority over his wife. I feel that such traditions are profoundly misguided.

If people willingly belong to such a tradition, they are welcome to it, although I suspect that many such traditions are environments in which coercive relationships are likely to be formed, and I certainly have an ethical problem with that.

 

[Everlasting33]

According to Christianity homosexuals should be put to death.


Fist fight?
Assumign they were needed, and further assuming that both partners are aware that they were needed, I guess they´d strive for appointing the authority by agreement (the paradoxy of this process would be mind-blowing, though, so we are back at fist fight or, IOW, might - physical strength - makes right).

I guess I´ll wait for the first good argument as to why in a two person relationship a "final authority" is needed. So far this is too hypothetical a discussion for me.

Well your first sentence has nothing to do with this topic but I know what you mean.

I don't have a good argument as to why a final authority is needed. I am debating this topic in another thread and I am trying to get good ideas to oppose this final authority idea!

 

[quatona]

I certainly strongly dislike the tradition of assuming that a man has final authority over his wife.

Shuddup and do the dishes already.

 

[Everlasting33]

I definitely strongly dislike the tradition of assuming that a man has final authority over his wife. I feel that such traditions are profoundly misguided.

Hmmm...but you don't find it wrong?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

I believe in any good relationship - "final authority" alternates depending on the issue. For example in my marriage - there are things that I'm better at - and there are things that she's better at. I don't believe that by virtue of my having male bits that somehow my word trumps hers on everything.

There are things that she accepts my word as being the "final authority" on - and I pay her the same courtesy.

This is the way I feel as well.
There is only one final authority.
And we are blessed by that authority with equal partners to make one flesh.
Both parties are beholdent to the final authority.

 

[Everlasting33]

This is the way I feel as well.
There is only one final authority.
And we are blessed by that authority with equal partners to make one flesh.
Both parties are beholdent to the final authority.

Do you believe these thoughts contradicts Scripture?

 

[cantata]

Hmmm...but you don't find it wrong?

I think it is based on false assumptions, so in that sense, it is wrong. I do not believe in absolute morality, so I am loath to use ‘wrong’ in that sense; however, I will do so below for simplicity’s sake.

I do not think it is wrong if people willingly participate in such an institution, but I do feel it is wrong for women to be coerced into marriages in which they will be required to submit to a man’s authority by virtue of their respective sexes. That objection applies to instances both of explicit and implicit coercion.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Do you believe these thoughts contradicts Scripture?

Well, that depends on definitions I guess.
God blesses us all with a blessing of our own. Some are blessed more than others on better decisions of practicality and life.
Both parties are blessed with particular traits that are special to each.
I would hope that all honest party members would respect that from each other.

 

[quatona]

Well your first sentence has nothing to do with this topic but I know what you mean.

Actually, I think it has a lot to do with the topic (final authorities and how they are determined, with gods being the epitome of the concept of final authorities). The funny thing being that supposedly final authorities depend on everyone agreeing that they are final authorities.

I don't have a good argument as to why a final authority is needed. I am debating this topic in another thread and I am trying to get good ideas to oppose this final authority idea!

I don´t see you in the position of needing such. Just ask the person who makes the positive claim for one good argument in support of it.

(The sports team argument is poor because a partnership simply is not a sports team. Using the same fallacious method you could argue that a sports team doesn´t need a coach because a marriage doesn´t have one. Typically, adult two person relationships - marriages, friendships, partnerships do not involve the idea of "final authority" ).

 

[gwenmead]

However, in Non Christian homes, how would one appoint a final authority figure?

Just for the record, in our marriage spouse and I resolve impasses by playing Rock-Scissors-Paper. Whoever wins 3 out of 5 gets to make the decision.

Works pretty well, actually.

 

[Athene]

Do you believe these thoughts contradicts Scripture?

Is there anything in the Bible which suggests to you that it's good to have authority just for the sake of having authority? Should a husband always have the final say in every decision just because he's the husband?

A man who recognises the strengths of his own wife and is totally comfortable with allowing her to make decisions that affect the pair of them is by far a better husband then the guy who has to control everything his wife does and will not let her do a thing without his say so first. The latter may think he is being a godly husband but the only god he is serving is the god he has made of himself.

 

[quatona]

Just for the record, in our marriage spouse and I resolve impasses by playing Rock-Scissors-Paper. Whoever wins 3 out of 5 gets to make the decision.

Works pretty well, actually.

But...who of you determined this to be the procedure to resolve impasses, and how did he/she gain the authority to determine it?

 

[Everlasting33]

Is there anything in the Bible which suggests to you that it's good to have authority just for the sake of having authority? Should a husband always have the final say in every decision just because he's the husband?

A man who recognises the strengths of his own wife and is totally comfortable with allowing her to make decisions that affect the pair of them is by far a better husband then the guy who has to control everything his wife does and will not let her do a thing without his say so first. The latter may think he is being a godly husband but the only god he is serving is the god he has made of himself.

Some good questions!

Authority is implied in this verse:
Ephesians 5:23 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.

 

[Everlasting33]

Just for the record, in our marriage spouse and I resolve impasses by playing Rock-Scissors-Paper. Whoever wins 3 out of 5 gets to make the decision.

Works pretty well, actually.

I will have to try that!