My Christian husband just started drinking...

[sfs]

Because this is an individual decision. If she doesn't want to drink and he does, so what? Why do they have to agree or disagree together on something that doesn't effect or impact her at all?

Because it is affecting her. She wrote here because she's got feelings of "Hate. Fear. Loss. Abandonment." That's a pretty big effect. Now you can argue that a husband's moderate drinking shouldn't affect his wife this way, but that kind of argument works best if you're not talking about someone married to an actual human being. Real humans tend to come with all sorts of vulnerabilities, irrationalities, and flaws. Part of being married is supporting your spouse in those weak places.

I have no idea how that would look in practice in this specific case. It might mean the husband deciding to forego alcohol solely because it bothered his wife. It might mean the wife talking out her fears with her husband (and maybe with a counselor) and getting past them. But just treating this as simply an issue for one individual doesn't work -- because they're not individuals. They're a couple.

 

[Saucy]

If she has feelings of hate, fear, loss, and abandonment over a few drinks, that's something she should seek help for. It's not a reasonable jump to take. Fear, loss, and abandonment over a drink of alcohol? Give me a break. I don't buy it for one second. Does she let him leave the house? I bet he's much more at risk of dying in a car accident driving to work than having a glass of wine at a party. Her demand is completely unreasonable.

Does she have to like steak because he does? I guess because they're a couple, they have to like all the same stuff and agree on everything they eat, drink, and do before they do it. Ooh, you better not eat steak then if your wife disagrees. You could suddenly get heart disease!

 

[bekkilyn]

I think people who are so extremely individualistic and who do not wish to be accountable to anyone else for anything might wish to simply avoid getting married. When a couple gets married, they become "one flesh" and everything one does affects the other, and vice versa. It is no longer about "me, myself, and I" but becomes "we" and each must consider the others needs before his or her own. And yes, that includes the man as much as the woman.

 

[Saucy]

Quitting drinking because your partner doesn't like it isn't a 'need'. It's a want. Again, if he was getting home drunk every night, being abusive, or even showing ANY signs of dependence or addiction, she might have a point. She's fearful over nothing, and becoming overbearing because of it. You still are individual enough to decide what you want to eat or drink without your partner's input. I guess we should go back to the day when men ordered for their wives because they're a couple now! He makes the money and should decide what she eats.

 

[bekkilyn]

Quitting drinking because your partner doesn't like it isn't a 'need'. It's a want. Again, if he was getting home drunk every night, being abusive, or even showing ANY signs of dependence or addiction, she might have a point. She's fearful over nothing, and becoming overbearing because of it. You still are individual enough to decide what you want to eat or drink without your partner's input. I guess we should go back to the day when men ordered for their wives because they're a couple now! He makes the money and should decide what she eats.

It doesn't matter whether it's a need or a want. They are married. They are "one flesh". They are to put each other first and they work through problems and issues together, no matter how minor they may seem. It's just a part of being married, and if a person isn't willing to accept that they are now a "we" and not a "me" then simply remain single and be free of marriage accountability.

 

[Saucy]

It doesn't matter whether it's a need or a want. They are married. They are "one flesh". They are to put each other first and they work through problems and issues together, no matter how minor they may seem. It's just a part of being married, and if a person isn't willing to accept that they are now a "we" and not a "me" then simply remain single and be free of marriage accountability.

Okay, so then she needs to recognize his desire to have a drink. Why doesn't she put him first and let him do what he wants? You seem so biasedly one-sided in defending her right to have her feelings be first while completely ignoring his. Just because you're married doesn't mean you have to do everything your spouse says or bow to their will. She has no reasonable argument, and what he's doing isn't causing any harm, other than her feelings are hurt. SHE needs to lighten up.

If the roles were reversed, I'd defend her right to have a drink. There's nothing sinful, morally wrong, or bad with having a few drinks a year. Feelings don't override reason.

 

[bekkilyn]

Okay, so then she needs to recognize his desire to have a drink. Why doesn't she put him first and let him do what he wants? You seem so biasedly one-sided in defending her right to have her feelings be first while completely ignoring his. Just because you're married doesn't mean you have to do everything your spouse says or bow to their will. She has no reasonable argument, and what he's doing isn't causing any harm, other than her feelings are hurt. SHE needs to lighten up.

If the roles were reversed, I'd defend her right to have a drink. There's nothing sinful, morally wrong, or bad with having a few drinks a year. Feelings don't override reason.

It's not a matter of which one is right or wrong or whether she's overreacting. What matters is that she is experiencing very real feelings over it and the situation as a whole is affecting their marriage, which means they do need to take it seriously and do something to work things out together to their mutual satisfaction. If he just ignores her feelings, whether or not they are justified, then that's just going to perpetuate the problem. Also, there is the fact that when they married, they were both non-drinkers and both remained non-drinkers for over a decade, and now suddenly he's started drinking. If you have always drank responsibly, it probably doesn't seem like a big deal, but in their particular situation, it is a big deal because it wasn't something included as part of the original "bargain" to to speak, so they must work it out together because they are "one flesh" and are accountable to each other for changes they want to make within the marriage. I'd say the same for him if she were the one making a behavior change within the marriage that affected his peace of mind.

It may be entirely different for a different couple, but the fact remains that they *are* a couple, not individuals who can just go off and do whatever they please without any accountability or consideration to the other person.

 

[Saucy]

There was no 'original bargain'. She said they never talked about alcohol. If she had brought it up before, then maybe she'd have a point because he was breaking a promise by drinking. She doesn't have a right to overreact and make unreasonable demands.

People change. You, nor your spouse, is going to stay the same person they were when they married. None. The only one allowing their feelings to affect the marriage is the wife who refuses to put her husband first and let him do something that causes no harm, isn't a sin, isn't wrong just because she doesn't like it.

Having a glass of wine once every few months isn't a 'behavioral change' and it's not something you need permission from your spouse to do. It's a drink, nothing more.

I guess I just don't understand your point. Being 'one flesh' doesn't mean one spouse has to obey just because the other doesn't like something. This is where you become an adult and let your spouse make an adult decision that he enjoys for no malicious reason.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say my husband is "accountable to me" for his actions, no matter what they are.

This language is terribly confusing and appears (?) to be turning scripture on its head..

Men are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, they are responsible for her spiritual growth and her provision.

This in no way indicates he answers to her for anything.

Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman.

Partners in life they should love each other, support the other and do our best for our spouses - but this trying to make him accountable to her because they are married isn't biblical at all..

Christ doesn't bow down to us and do just anything we desire... He was hated which doesn't indicate a Christ who changed Himself to suit His church..... so saying the same type of love doesn't mean a woman can walk all over her husband.

And telling him he can't have the occasional glass of wine would be the equivalent of my husband telling me I couldn't start going to the museum occasionally because I didn't do that when we got married. Such a proposition isn't biblical because it lacks respect for the individual.

 

[bekkilyn]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say my husband is "accountable to me" for his actions, no matter what they are.

This language is terribly confusing and appears (?) to be turning scripture on its head..

Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, they are responsible for her spiritual growth and her provisions.

This does in no way indicate he answers to her for anything.

Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman.

They are partners in life, should love each other support the other and do our best for our spouse - but this trying to make him accountable to her because they are married isn't biblical at all..

Christ doesn't bow down to us and do just anything we desire... He was hated.. so saying the same type of love doesn't mean a woman can walk all over her husband.

You are both to be mutually submissive to each other in Christ, as Paul stated in Ephesians 5:21. Paul's instruction to the wife and husband is the same instruction stated two different ways. Christ came to earth as a servant. He washed the feet of the disciples. He took on the sin of the entire world and sacrificed himself for our welfare. "So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last."

The word translated as "head" does not mean "rule over"...that is a different Greek word. The word translated as "head" can mean "origin" or "source" meaning that the man is the source of the woman (his rib) as Christ is the source of the Church. It in no way whatsoever means "the ruler" or implies any sort of domination.

The husband and wife are to be mutually subject to one another in Christ.

Now if you and your husband are both happy with the way you've set up your household, Paul isn't instructing you to change it, but neither is he instructing people to set up their households as they were back in Greco-Roman times with everything rigidly hierarchical with the family patriarch ruling over everyone else . The entire point of his message here is that Christians are equal in Christ and that we are to put each other's needs before our own.

No one is suggesting that the woman walk all over her husband. They instead need to work together to come to a mutual agreement where each one considers the needs/wants of the other.

 

[Hazelelponi]

You are both to be mutually submissive to each other in Christ, as Paul stated in Ephesians 5:21. Paul's instruction to the wife and husband is the same instruction stated two different ways. Christ came to earth as a servant. He washed the feet of the disciples. He took on the sin of the entire world and sacrificed himself for our welfare. "So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last."

The word translated as "head" does not mean "rule over"...that is a different Greek word. The word translated as "head" can mean "origin" or "source" meaning that the man is the source of the woman (his rib) as Christ is the source of the Church. It in no way whatsoever means "the ruler" or implies any sort of domination.

The husband and wife are to be mutually subject to one another in Christ.

Now if you and your husband are both happy with the way you've set up your household, Paul isn't instructing you to change it, but neither is he instructing people to set up their households as they were back in Greco-Roman times with everything rigidly hierarchical with the family patriarch ruling over everyone else . The entire point of his message here is that Christians are equal in Christ and that we are to put each other's needs before our own.

No one is suggesting that the woman walk all over her husband. They instead need to work together to come to a mutual agreement where each one considers the needs/wants of the other.

a man should love his wife as Christ loves the Church.

Yes, Jesus came as a servant to serve - NOT as our slave. Jesus was hated, which doesnt indicate a person who changed Himself to suit people..

What you are suggesting is that this mutual submission means thay she can make demands on her husband that are absolutely unreasonable.

would you call it reasonable if my husband told me I couldn't start going to the museum occasionally because it wasn't something I did when I married him and he doesn't like museums (no reason just a dislike of them) so he demanded I not be allowed to ever go - even without him?

I think any sane person would call the above an absolutely unreasonable demand within the marriage, and that such a spousal request was against biblical mandate for his role as a husband.

Well if it's against his role as a husband why on earth would anyone think a similar situation as has been mentioned in this thread is somehow a reasonable demand?

It's absolutely unreasonable, unbiblical and irrational to expect someone, anyone, to bow down to a request like no you can't have the occasional glass of wine because I don't want you to..

 

[Saucy]

a man should love his wife as Christ loves the Church.

Yes, Jesus came as a servant to serve - NOT as our slave. Jesus was hated, which doesnt indicate a person who changed Himself to suit people..

What you are suggesting is that this mutual submission means thay she can make demands on her husband that are absolutely unreasonable.

would you call it reasonable if my husband told me I couldn't start going to the museum occasionally because it wasn't something I did when I married him and he doesn't like museums (no reason just a dislike of them) so he demanded I not be allowed to go without him?

I think any sane person would call the above an absolutely unreasonable demand within the marriage, and that such a spousal request was against biblical mandate for his role as a husband.

Well if it's against his role as a husband why on earth would anyone think a similar situation as has been mentioned in this thread is somehow a reasonable demand?

It's absolutely unreasonable, unbiblical, irrational to expect someone, anyone, to bow down to a request like no you can't have the occasional glass of wine because I don't want you to..

I agree wholeheartedly. And this is where the double standard comes in. If your husband started demanding that you don't go to museums, I bet most people in here would say your husband was being controlling and unreasonable. Like, you're allowed to go to the museum, on your own, without your spouse's permission. Out of love, you can decide to let them know where you're going. You can offer to pick up milk on the way home, but 'love' and 'accountability' isn't letting your spouse demand you don't go for whatever unreasonable reason he had.

What if he had an unreasonable feeling of fear and loss, that you were really going to cheat on him, so he wanted you to stay home? Should you obey?

 

[bekkilyn]

a man should love his wife as Christ loves the Church.

Yes, Jesus came as a servant to serve - NOT as our slave. Jesus was hated, which doesnt indicate a person who changed Himself to suit people..

What you are suggesting is that this mutual submission means thay she can make demands on her husband that are absolutely unreasonable.

would you call it reasonable if my husband told me I couldn't start going to the museum occasionally because it wasn't something I did when I married him and he doesn't like museums (no reason just a dislike of them) so he demanded I not be allowed to ever go - even without him?

I think any sane person would call the above an absolutely unreasonable demand within the marriage, and that such a spousal request was against biblical mandate for his role as a husband.

Well if it's against his role as a husband why on earth would anyone think a similar situation as has been mentioned in this thread is somehow a reasonable demand?

It's absolutely unreasonable, unbiblical and irrational to expect someone, anyone, to bow down to a request like no you can't have the occasional glass of wine because I don't want you to..

Would you feel any differently if he started socially smoking marijuana a few times a year? (Provided it was legal in your state)

As far as the museum example goes, if he was as terrified and concerned about me going there as the OP is of her husband drinking, then I'd try to determine where this fear was coming from. Maybe something terrible happened to him in a museum and he has some minor PTSD about it and doesn't want me coming to harm there, even if the idea is irrational to me and practically everyone else. That's why we would need to talk about it, discuss it, perhaps even attend counseling if we need to in order to work it out.

Now we would also need to question if this were something that happened about practically everything or if this fear of museums was a very rare request during a long-term marriage and no other requests have ever been turned down. Maybe not going to a museum is a small sacrifice that one could do for the marriage in this particular case, even if it's otherwise ridiculous or unreasonable.

Whatever decision we make about it though needs to be made as a couple. It could just come down to him being angry at an employee there because he got kicked out of the museum and vowed that he would never go there again and doesn't want that decision undermined by his family going there as well. And now it turns out that the employee got fired for a similar altercation with someone else and the museum is fair game again, so now we've decided we can go and everyone's happy.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I agree wholeheartedly. And this is where the double standard comes in. If your husband started demanding that you don't go to museums, I bet most people in here would say your husband was being controlling and unreasonable. Like, you're allowed to go to the museum, on your own, without your spouse's permission. Out of love, you can decide to let them know where you're going. You can offer to pick up milk on the way home, but 'love' and 'accountability' isn't letting your spouse demand you don't go for whatever unreasonable reason he had.

Like, what if he had an unreasonable feeling of fear and loss, that you were really going to cheat on him, so he wanted you to stay home? Like, should you obey?

One huge thing that I adore about Christianity, about our Lord, is that He allows freedom of choice and individuality.

Its a freedom so few understand enough to truly appreciate, but we are free.

Why would anyone take such a gift, such a blessing, and seek to imprison their spouse? Remove their freedom of choice?

Man or woman doesnt matter.. Ive lived that prison and its hell on earth, and I cant imagine deciding to do it to another human being..

 

[bekkilyn]

One huge thing that I adore about Christianity, about our Lord, is that He allows freedom of choice and individuality.

Its a freedom so few understand enough to truly appreciate, but we are free.

Why would anyone take such a gift, such a blessing, and seek to imprison their spouse? Remove their freedom of choice?

Man or woman doesnt matter.. Ive lived that prison and its hell on earth, and I cant imagine deciding to do it to another human being..

I agree with you there. I don't think anyone should try to imprison one's spouse. In this case though, the OP is feeling afraid and fear isn't a rational thing, which is another reason why I think they need to resolve this issue together as a couple. Instead, he's getting angry and defensive and she's just getting more and more afraid and the division continues to widen. (Just going by the OP...I don't know what if anything has happened with them since then.)

Chances are good that they work it out and he has his two or three glasses of wine a year and she has her peace of mind back again, but if she just tries to ignore her feelings and suffers her anxiety in silence, that's just putting the problem on the back-burner for it to erupt in even worse ways later.

I just don't see what the problem is with coming to a mutual agreement, and then they can both be happy rather that one person or the other getting his or her way.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Would you feel any differently if he started socially smoking marijuana a few times a year? (Provided it was legal in your state)

As far as the museum example goes, if he was as terrified and concerned about me going there as the OP is of her husband drinking, then I'd try to determine where this fear was coming from. Maybe something terrible happened to him in a museum and he has some minor PTSD about it and doesn't want me coming to harm there, even if the idea is irrational to me and practically everyone else. That's why we would need to talk about it, discuss it, perhaps even attend counseling if we need to in order to work it out.

Now we would also need to question if this were something that happened about practically everything or if this fear of museums was a very rare request during a long-term marriage and no other requests have ever been turned down. Maybe not going to a museum is a small sacrifice that one could do for the marriage in this particular case, even if it's otherwise ridiculous or unreasonable.

Whatever decision we make about it though needs to be made as a couple. It could just come down to him being angry at an employee there because he got kicked out of the museum and vowed that he would never go there again and doesn't want that decision undermined by his family going there as well. And now it turns out that the employee got fired for a similar altercation with someone else and the museum is fair game again, so now we've decided we can go and everyone's happy.

Okay, so a few things about me. I am a former Muslim. I lived under laws and rules that were oppressive. Everything I was allowed to do was at my ex-husbands pleasure which could always be revoked depending upon mood.

I went against everyone and everything I knew and made my stand on what I decided was right in my own heart, not only where concerned my marriage, but where concerned my position on Islam and extremism and later in life a stand where concerned my religion.

So, I've bucked every tradition and got a price put on my own head to do it, lost family, freinds, community, all for what I believed was right.

Not fun, I've been fighting for what feels like a lifetime or two.

So.. that is my background.

As a result, I would tell my husband my opinion (I am now married to an exceptional Christian man) and then leave him to his own decision whether or not he wanted to do something that was legal..

I'm not in the business of taking away his freedom of choice. When you have to fight for freedom, you see how precious it is for all of us, and seek to protect it for others.

He seeks to protect my freedom, how could I not seek to protect his?

I do think this women needs a bit of counselling... she obviously has worse issues with alcohol than I did with alcohol and pork so your correct they are issues to be resolved and perhaps counselling is a great place to figure it all out.

However, I'm unsure why he needs to be brought into it or make him as responsible for her resolving this issue as she is. He should support her effort to resolve the issue but I cant see trying to force him to change until she does or turn this into some kind of group decision.

 

[bekkilyn]

Okay, so a few things about me. I am a former Muslim. I lived under laws and rules that were oppressive. Everything I was allowed to do was at my ex-husbands pleasure which could always be revoked depending upon mood.

I went against everyone and everything I knew and made my stand on what I decided was right in my own heart, not only where concerned my marriage, but where concerned my position on Islam and extremism and later in life a stand where concerned my religion.

So, I've bucked every tradition and got a price put on my own head to do it, lost family, freinds, community, all for what I believed was right.

Not fun, I've been fighting for what feels like a lifetime or two.

So.. that is my background.

As a result, I would tell my husband my opinion (I am now married to an exceptional Christian man) and then leave him to his own decision whether or not he wanted to do something that was legal..

I'm not in the business of taking away his freedom of choice. When you have to fight for freedom, you see how precious it is for all of us, and seek to protect it for others.

He seeks to protect my freedom, how could I not seek to protect his?

I do think this women needs a bit of counselling... she obviously has worse issues with alcohol than I did with alcohol and pork so your correct they are issues to be resolved and perhaps counselling is a great place to figure it all out.

However, I'm unsure why he needs to be brought into it or make him as responsible for her resolving this issue as she is. He should support her effort to resolve the issue but I cant see trying to force him to change until she does or turn this into some kind of group decision.

Wow, I'm sorry you had to go through that horrible experience. It does sound like God has been able to turn it into some good things for you. I do have a better idea of where you are coming from and why you may wish to try to protect his freedom of choice.

I definitely do not agree that either person in a marriage should control the other person, (and certainly not like what you have experienced!) but I do think that each person in a marriage should *consider* the other person. Mutual submission. (If only one is doing it, it's not going to work and will turn into a control situation.)

I don't think we should assume that the issue or the problem is with her, or with him, or with both, and I think that's part of where this argument is coming from. I'm not taking her side so much as being unwilling to assume that this problem is all her. We don't know enough about either of them to know that. We don't know *why* he suddenly started drinking after a *lifetime* (minus one single incident) of not drinking, and we don't know her well enough to know *if* she has a history of overreacting to things or if this is an exception of reasonable concern due to factors that we can't see over the internet.

That's a reason I think they need to work it out together as a couple. Not so that one or the other can get his or her own way, but so that they can come to a win-win agreement.

 

[Thess]

A little background... My husband and I have been married for 13 years with two kids. We're in our early 30s, my husband is a professional and I am a stay at home Mom. He is an elder in our church. (we both understand the severity of this position)

When we met in our late teens (I was a senior in high school, he a sophomore in college) we were both Christians and averse to alcohol. I've never even been tempted and he had one hard-to-remember night in high school (that was the only time he ever drank and he swore it off). It was never a thing and it never has been. Until recently. For whatever reason, in the last 6 months or so he has begun to take to wine or champagne - nothing "hard" or beer... But we've gone on a few vacations and he has a glass on the plane, at the hotel, out to dinner, whatever. He's on vacation right now with our 10 year old son and he's sending pictures and in the pictures is his wine glass (with wine in it).

He's very adamant about it being only one glass, he is not drunk, not even buzzed. But I can't shake it.

Now... I have made my position very clear on this - and many times. It makes me uncomfortable and I do not like it. I confessed to him that I cannot give him any "good" reasoning other than I really hate it. In my mind, that should be enough. I'm his wife and he should respect me. But he's really firing back at me - really fighting it. And I don't understand why. He says it "relaxes" him. But I'm concerned... why does he need relaxing? What if, while in this state of relaxation, he sins. Is this a stumbling block?

We've dealt with things in the past and it just drags up all of my old feelings of... I can't explain it... Hate. Fear. Loss. Abandonment. But why is he fighting me so much on something that, as he says, "doesn't mean anything". If it doesn't mean anything, why does it mean so much?

He's a very logical man, and he wants logic. All I can give him is that it makes me uncomfortable. So he fires back with things to get back at me. (ie: "I'm going to make a long list of things that make me uncomfortable")

I'm so sad. My heart is so heavy over this. I wish it didn't matter so much to me... but I feel God is pushing him through me. It matters to me because it matters to God. Does that make sense?

It just feels good to talk about this. Alcohol is so prevalent in our society... Even my Christian friends drink. I feel like I can't talk to anyone about this.

Remarkable post. Thank you so much for opening up your life, not just for your benefit, but for ours. Thank you again.

I'm a recovered alcoholic of about 21 years....terrible. I destroyed my former marriage, saying exactly the same things I said to my former wife (with three step kids). If you are still searching for answer, BSOCS is a life navigation tool and can help you get to the absolute point of what is taking place with your husband. If you still need help, and I'm sure you do, please allow me to help ease your suffering and explain BSOCS.

Great post. I believe in you! (Be confident!)