Who Comes First?

[blackribbon]

Still living it.

You are trying to break up your parents?

 

[redblue22]

You are trying to break up your parents?

And keep them so.

 

[JAM2b]

Having been married and in love with my spouse at the time and in situations where I had to focus on my children's wellbeing at the cost of chucking everyone else out of my life, I think there is flaw in thinking it has to be either the spouse or the kids.

It is true that your life is committed to spending it with your spouse. However, if you bring children into the world, they are your responsibility, and they rely entirely on the adults in their lives. The kids will grow up and become responsible within their abilities someday, and if things go according to plan, you will spend the rest of your days growing old with your spouse. Hopefully the family will continue to grow with marriages and grandchildren (who are also dependent).

With all this to consider, I don't believe there should be either a spouse first or a child first mindset. It should be a family mindset. I like considering a hierarchy of needs followed by wants. EVERYONE's needs should be met before anyone's wants. Everyone needs love, attention, time, security and physical needs. If anyone's needs in the family is being unmet on a regular basis, then there is something broken in the family.

This means sometimes saying no to the kids, and it means sometimes saying no to a spouse. It depends on the circumstances and who has the greatest need at the time, and at which phase are the children in their lives with their various states of dependence on the parents.

 

[name_is_irrelevant]

it means sometimes saying no to a spouse.

Except that in a Christian marriage the wife is to submit to the husband as head, according to the Bible. So you have to factor that in as well, which to my mind implies spouse first (from both spouses, to be clear.) Besides that, a spouse is in a totally different category than the children. There are definitely authority structures that the Bible teaches in family dynamics. May not be the same thing as hierarchy per se though.

 

[JAM2b]

Yeah I had a husband the church told me I was supposed to submit to. His leadership included not taking the kids to the doctor when they were sick, limiting the grocery budget so that he had enough for his cigarettes and computer games, and not wanting to buy healthier foods because they were expensive while insisting we had junk food for him to snack on. When I refused to follow his lead, I was criticized for not putting him first and not being a good wife. The church did nothing to help me with what he was doing. I was told the reason he wasn't a good leader was because I wasn't a good follower, and if I were a better wife, focused on him, he would love me more and want to be a better husband and father. One church told me to either stay and put up with him or leave. Another church told me they were going to pray for me and encourage me until I was ready to repent of willfully disobeying the word of God by refusing to submit to my husband.

I do believe in headship and submission, when the leader is operating correctly and every one's needs are being met. Short of that, I think what a lot of churches teach on that is some hogwash. I would always put my children's wellbeing ahead of anything a husband would want, head of the house or not. That is my line in the sand. That is one of the few things I am inflexible about, and I do not believe that it is wrong to buck bad authority.

 

[name_is_irrelevant]

I do believe in headship and submission, when the leader is operating correctly and every one's needs are being met. Short of that, that's some hogwash.

You're wrong, but at the same time I don't blame you for not wanting to put up with a deadbeat husband. See everyone, this is why it's better to be single than stuck in a crappy marriage. A lot of churches won't even discipline / excommunicate the husband when he's not doing his job properly.

 

[Niels]

I'm inclined to say whoever is least able to care for or support themselves. Young kids, or perhaps a severely ill spouse, would generally come first out of necessity.

Or maybe the spouse should come first so there's more of a foundation for the kids. I don't think this has to be an either - or situation. If a husband and wife invest in each other's well-being, that can help them make the children a priority.

Edit: This is a hard one to answer.

 

[Saucy]

It's a difficult question for sure, but I believe a couple should build a solid foundation of marriage before having kids. It's on that foundation, and in service to each other and to God, that they bring children into the world.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Who comes first? Your spouse or your kids?

Good xxxx (blessing).

(No luck involved)

Who comes first ?
Yahshua (Jesus). ALWAYS.

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

The answer to what came first is obviously the egg and then secondly the chicken.

Spoiler: Why?

The egg is for breakfast and the chicken is for dinner

 

[blackribbon]

Except that in a Christian marriage the wife is to submit to the husband as head, according to the Bible. So you have to factor that in as well, which to my mind implies spouse first (from both spouses, to be clear.) Besides that, a spouse is in a totally different category than the children. There are definitely authority structures that the Bible teaches in family dynamics. May not be the same thing as hierarchy per se though.

It also says a husband is to love his spouse, which means he sometimes has to sacrifice his wants and needs to focus on the wants and needs of his wife....meaning if she needs for the focus to be on the children, he will love her enough to let the focus go to the kids.

 

[name_is_irrelevant]

meaning if she needs for the focus to be on the children, he will love her enough to let the focus go to the kids.

OK... but in moderation, though. I'd still say that has to be out of putting his wife first.

I recall this short clip of Paul Washer speaking on this, what's your opinion on what he says?

 

[blackribbon]

OK... but in moderation, though. I'd still say that has to be out of putting his wife first.

I recall this short clip of Paul Washer speaking on this, what's your opinion on what he says?

He is wrong. Children do not meet a woman's need for love. They take love. They drain the "love bucket". There is no guarantee that any child will love you back. Like he said, it isn't their job to provide emotion support to their parents and mostly they don't. Mothers love their children because they come from their body. They start making sacrifices for these children 8 months before the mother even gets to meet them. And if a man saves his wife before he attempts to save their children, that is a couple that will likely be divorced within a year because she won't forgive him for not protecting her family. She will never feel safe with him because it will look like he is saving her for selfish reasons. She would willingly give up her life if it means even one of her babies would not have to suffer. Most men don't have a problem with picking their kids over their wives. They don't walk in from a hard day at work and immediately run down the hall to play barbies or power rangers. They sit on the sofa. Kick the kids out of the room so it isn't noisy and they serve them selves "because they deserve it" and the woman is suppose to serve them. If a husband walks in the house and takes the kids outside to play baseball or rounds the kids up to show daddy that their homework is done and their school bags are packed for the next day while she finishes up making supper, the wife is going to feel tremendously loved and cared for. All he has to do to put her first is walk by and give her a kiss and tell her loves her.

Loving the kids is loving a mother.

There is nothing sexier to a wife than a husband playing with their children and is the best form of foreplay I know.

 

[torahpointstoHim]

I think each should be given their specific needs at a certain time. I think kids are naturally given more time while their young. As the kids grow older, that's where you get more time with your spouse.

Unless the spouse wants to be treated like one of your kids

 

[torahpointstoHim]

[deleted]

 

[blackribbon]

I'm not a husband/father, maybe they would want to be saved over the children. I know that my husband would want to die if any of us had died because he wasn't able to protect all of us.

 

[name_is_irrelevant]

He is wrong. Children do not meet a woman's need for love. They take love. They drain the "love bucket". There is no guarantee that any child will love you back. Like he said, it isn't their job to provide emotion support to their parents and mostly they don't. Mothers love their children because they come from their body. They start making sacrifices for these children 8 months before the mother even gets to meet them. And if a man saves his wife before he attempts to save their children, that is a couple that will likely be divorced within a year because she won't forgive him for not protecting her family. She will never feel safe with him because it will look like he is saving her for selfish reasons. She would willingly give up her life if it means even one of her babies would not have to suffer. Most men don't have a problem with picking their kids over their wives. They don't walk in from a hard day at work and immediately run down the hall to play barbies or power rangers. They sit on the sofa. Kick the kids out of the room so it isn't noisy and they serve them selves "because they deserve it" and the woman is suppose to serve them. If a husband walks in the house and takes the kids outside to play baseball or rounds the kids up to show daddy that their homework is done and their school bags are packed for the next day while she finishes up making supper, the wife is going to feel tremendously loved and cared for. All he has to do to put her first is walk by and give her a kiss and tell her loves her.

Loving the kids is loving a mother.

There is nothing sexier to a wife than a husband playing with their children and is the best form of foreplay I know.

Intersting comments - thanks.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

You aren't one flesh with your kids..