Husbands Authority

[tall73]

But what if he doesn't listen to the elder/pastor/minister? Stops going to church or finds a church more to his taste or just ignores them?

"Get your pastor to tell him" isn't an adequate answer.

Now let's take your view. She believes in equality. He is abusive....what are her options?

You list:

but in an equal marriage she can, for example, insist on counselling, or separation, or the like.

How many abusers agree to counseling, even if the wife believes in equality? Separation is noted as non-desirable but allowable even in I Corinthians 7, but should not remarry, and reconcile if possible.

 

[tall73]

I think you're missing my point. If we say to her that she doesn't have to submit in every circumstance, no matter what, that gives her options. For example, she can separate from him.

But if you tell her she must submit in every circumstance, no matter what, then if he doesn't want to listen to his church or whatever she's stuck. And that's the bit I'm having a problem with.

It's absolutely wrong to put someone in a situation of powerlessness and then tell her there's no way out, ever, no matter what. It's why we allow people to be refugees from evil governments, after all!

And again, I didn't tell her no matter what. I have posts here lately, including the last few days, that say that if he is abusing his authority then she need not comply. Just as the disciples didn't comply when the Sanhedrin went beyond its authority. Just as Daniel didn't comply, and just as the three Hebrew youths didn't comply.

Husbands don't exercise their own authority, but that of Christ. If they are acting outside of Christlike behavior the wife does not have to go along with it.

I think I have mentioned before even my daughter at a young age corrected me with Scripture before regarding calling someone a fool. I listened because it was Scripture. Would an abuser? Probably not. But again, there is no solution to sin this side of Jesus' coming.

 

[tall73]

I think you're missing my point.

And I think you are asking me to defend a view I do not hold. I do not hold that she must do everything no matter what. That is not the case of submission to government, or if the church leaders were corrupt, etc.

So if you say that someone holds a wrong position, that does not mean I have to defend that position.

 

[Paidiske]

Separation is noted as non-desirable but allowable even in I Corinthians 7, but should not remarry, and reconcile if possible.

But that would be in conflict with the idea that she must submit, if she can unilaterally separate.

It seems that you're now allowing for a limited submission, one that only goes along with what is already right (which I would argue then has nothing to do with the husband's "authority"). But that's not what I saw being argued for up thread, and not what I was objecting to.

 

[tall73]

But that would be in conflict with the idea that she must submit, if she can unilaterally separate.

It seems that you're now allowing for a limited submission, one that only goes along with what is already right (which I would argue then has nothing to do with the husband's "authority"). But that's not what I saw being argued for up thread, and not what I was objecting to.

No, I am saying, that abuse is not complying with what Ephesians 5 says, and is not an appropriate use of his authority. Therefore she should not comply.

 

[Paidiske]

But I'm not just talking about abuse, per se. I'm talking about abusing his authority to get his way rather than seeking consensus in the marriage.

 

[tall73]

Does anything here justify abuse, whether striking your spouse, or verbal abuse?

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingb]">[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. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”c]">[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Of course not. So I do not say that a spouse should comply with abuse.

 

[tall73]

But I'm not just talking about abuse, per se. I'm talking about abusing his authority to get his way rather than seeking consensus in the marriage.

If she can read then she knows what the text says. If she knows what the text says she can say what the text says, as I indicated some posts back.

If he refuses to listen to the text....what solution is there regardless of her view?

Someone without the Spirit won't live like someone with it.

 

[tall73]

Now your turn. What would a woman who believes in egalitarian marriage do if her husband was not including her in decisions?

 

[Paidiske]

Someone without the Spirit won't live like someone with it.

Agreed. But the problem is when their spouse is told they have to submit, whether they're living that way or not.

I think possibly you and I are framing the problem differently, which is why we're thinking differently about the solution.

It seems to me you're framing the problem as them not agreeing, whereas I don't see that as the problem; I see the problem as when she is required to go along with him when they don't agree, as a religious obligation.

So to me, the problem is solved when we agree that she doesn't have to submit, but to you, the problem is not solved because they still don't agree? That's just life. Then they need to a) be patient with one another and b) possibly explore developing skills in communication and conflict resolution. Not resort to an "I win because I have a penis" maneuver.

If my husband were not including me in significant decisions on a consistent basis, I would insist on addressing that problem in some way (counselling being an obvious candidate). If he still refused I would seriously consider separation, and given the need to resolve issues of finances, custody and so forth, that may need to be legally formalised as divorce.

But I don't agree that I have an obligation to be treated badly indefinitely because that's what God wants.

 

[tall73]

But I'm not just talking about abuse, per se. I'm talking about abusing his authority to get his way rather than seeking consensus in the marriage.

A. that is still abuse.
B. This still doesn't address the times where they do confer, they do try to reach agreement, and there is no agreement.

If after we have both tried all we can to resolve something, and we cannot decide, I have decided. In one of the three instances I decided to do what she proposed because she had more stake in it.

Either way, conferring does not mean you will agree on everything. And at some point some decisions cannot be deferred. Sometimes to do nothing is itself a risk. Sometimes someone has to make a decision.

As I mentioned the last time we had this conversation, I only remember the circumstances in one of the incidents, and neither of us holds a grudge over any of it. As far as we are concerned, it worked the way it is supposed to. It is not our preference though, we try to agree.

 

[tall73]

Agreed. But the problem is when their spouse is told they have to submit, whether they're living that way or not.

Do you want me to justify bank robbers or murderers next? I do not recommend the behavior. I think the wife should call out the behavior based on the text.

I need not defend an abusive position because you want to highlight abusive scenarios. I don't need to defend a view of the text (she must do anything he says no matter what) that I do not hold. Knowing CF someone will come along soon enough who does hold that position and they can defend it.

 

[Paidiske]

Either way, conferring does not mean you will agree on everything. And at some point some decisions cannot be deferred. Sometimes to do nothing is itself a risk. Sometimes someone has to make a decision

Short of something like "I had to break a window right then or someone would have died from smoke inhalation," I just don't agree. And I definitely don't agree that one person can go, "Well, this isn't working, and a decision needs to be made, so I'm making it and you'll live with it."

 

[Paidiske]

I think the wife should call out the behavior based on the text.

But that doesn't fix anything!

I need not defend an abusive position because you want to highlight abusive scenarios. I don't need to defend a view of the text (she must do anything he says no matter what) that I do not hold. Knowing CF someone will come along soon enough who does hold that position and they can defend it.

I'm not asking you to defend a position you don't hold. But I'm not clear what position you do hold, because you don't seem very consistent. One minute she doesn't need to submit, next minute he gets to make the decision because he's the man, and you still haven't said what she can actually do that will be effective if she feels he isn't living up to his end of the bargain.

It looks to me like you want to say, "Well, she should submit, but he should be a nice guy, so there will be no problems." But that's not real life!

 

[tall73]

Short of something like "I had to break a window right then or someone would have died from smoke inhalation," I just don't agree. And I definitely don't agree that one person can go, "Well, this isn't working, and a decision needs to be made, so I'm making it and you'll live with it."

Without going into details the issue I recall was immediate and could have resulted in the death of our toddler.

 

[Paidiske]

Without going into details the issue I recall was immediate and could have resulted in the death of our toddler.

Well, then there's no time for extended discussion; but that's not really what we're talking about here, I think.

 

[tall73]

But that doesn't fix anything!

Neither does it fix anything if she holds your position. She is still with an abuser.

 

[tall73]

Well, then there's no time for extended discussion; but that's not really what we're talking about here, I think.

Well we were able to have some discussion, and tried to resolve it. But it is part of what I am talking about because it happened, and was an example.

Again, do I think that every Scripture was given with my exact circumstances in mind? No. But then at the same time God spelling out exactly what a husband should do does not prevent a husband for disregarding it in this life.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Not going to lie, I have no idea what we are talking about anymore.

 

[Paidiske]

Neither does it fix anything if she holds your position. She is still with an abuser.

But at least she knows that it's not God's will that she perpetuate that by submitting to it. That's an immensely important thing, not a trivial thing.

I think for me the second half of post #135 sums up my frustration with this discussion. I don't know if there's anything more to be said unless that can be addressed.